subagent_rollback

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default revert of command side effects and conflict handling with force flag. However, it does not detail prerequisites (e.g., existence of recorded changes) or failure modes beyond conflicts.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Efficient and to the point.

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?

With an output schema (not shown) and 5 parameters, the description covers core behavior but leaves gaps: what are 'recorded file changes'? What happens if segment_id is null? No mention of error conditions or return format. Sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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%, so description must add value. It touches on parameters indirectly: rollback implies agent_id and paths; default revert relates to include_command_effects; force conflict handling. But precise semantics for segment_id and paths are absent. The description provides context but not comprehensive documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rollback recorded file changes for an Open Subagent MCP run or segment.' The verb 'rollback' and resource 'recorded file changes' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like subagent_close or subagent_spawn, which focus on lifecycle or communication.

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 use case (undoing changes) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. Since sibling tools are clearly different (close, send_message, spawn, wait), context suffices, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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