Move the rollback bar

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core side effect: features after the index are suppressed, and explains the index-0 edge case. However, it does not mention whether this is a persistent document mutation, whether it requires write permissions, or whether it affects the saved state of the document. The suppression effect is the key behavior and is disclosed, but other behavioral context is missing.

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, no filler. The core action and the critical edge case are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. However, it doesn't state what the response looks like (e.g., whether it returns the updated feature list) or whether the operation is reversible. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but the description could be more complete about the effect on the document state.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaning for the 'index' parameter by explaining the rollback semantics and the index-0 special case, which goes beyond the schema's 'Rollback index; use a large number to roll fully forward.' The other parameters (doc, ws, elem) are standard identifiers already well-described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to add more.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('rollback index'), and explains the effect ('features after it are suppressed'). It also clarifies the special case of index 0. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the resource and effect are clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from feature-editing tools like onshape_add_feature or onshape_update_feature.

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 when to use it: when you want to suppress features after a certain point in the feature list. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., onshape_get_features to inspect the current rollback state, or onshape_update_feature for editing a feature). The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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