restore_commitRestore a document to a specific commit version using its commit ID. Optionally preview changes with dry_run before applying to disk.
Restaure un document depuis son commit ID dans le CAS. Si dry_run=True, prévisualise sans modifier le disque.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| commit_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that dry_run=True previews without modifying the disk, which is useful, but it does not disclose what happens when dry_run=False (e.g., whether it overwrites the current document, whether it is destructive, whether it requires specific permissions). For a restore operation that likely mutates state, this is a significant gap.
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 and front-loaded with the main action. The dry_run clarification is useful and placed second. However, it is so brief that it misses important behavioral details, so it is not maximally effective.
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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should explain the restore behavior, the meaning of target, and the effect of dry_run=False. It only covers dry_run. The output schema exists but the description does not mention what the restore result looks like. This is incomplete for a mutation-capable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description only explains dry_run's behavior; it does not explain commit_id format, target's purpose, or how they interact. With 3 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient.
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 ('restore') and resource ('a document from its commit ID in the CAS'), which clearly identifies the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_diff_artifact or list_commits, but the restore action is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose.
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 usage context: restoring a document from a commit ID, with dry_run for previewing. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diff_artifact or prune_commits, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The dry_run hint provides some guidance but not full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.