rba_rollback_script_capsule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail: 'RBA captures the current source first as a safety snapshot,' which hints at the destructive nature of restore. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation overwrites or replaces the current file, nor does it specify permissions or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no filler. Every word earns its place, and the safety-snapshot note adds value without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple restore operation, especially with the safety-snapshot context. However, it lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., capsule must exist, snapshotId validity), and error handling, which might be needed for confident execution.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (id and snapshotId). The param names are somewhat self-explanatory but not defined in context, so the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific action ('Restore') and resource ('capsule source file') plus context ('from a selected snapshot'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, list, snapshot, and run capsule tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used to restore a capsule source from a snapshot, providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., using rba_restore_backup for non-capsule files), so it lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.