docx_rollback

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

The description mentions it is a write operation and restores from backup, but it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential data loss, or the relationship between backup_path and restore_path. Without annotations, more detail is needed.

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?

The description is very short (two words plus one sentence), but it omits critical information. The 'Write.' prefix is unclear and does not add value. Conciseness is not beneficial when it sacrifices clarity.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., valid backup file), side effects, or the relationship between the paths. The agent cannot effectively use this tool.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain the meaning of backup_path, restore_path, or make_backup_of_current. The agent cannot determine which parameter is the source or destination.

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?

Description states 'Restore from backup and optionally back up replaced file first,' which gives a general idea but doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'docx_restore_backup' or clarify the specific rollback context. The 'Write.' prefix is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docx_backup or docx_restore_backup. The description lacks any context for appropriate use.

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