rollback_safe_mode

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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the mechanism (closing the SSH session) and the consequence (all pending changes are discarded). This is valuable because the annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not specify these details. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and mechanism. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy or padding. Ideal size for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core effect and side effect (SSH session close). It explains the operation sufficiently, though it could have briefly noted the device parameter's purpose or when safe mode must be active. Overall, it is complete enough given the low complexity.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'device' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the parameter name alone. With such low coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 action: 'Discards all pending Safe Mode changes' with a specific mechanism. The verb 'discards' and resource 'pending Safe Mode changes' distinctly define the operation, and it differentiates from siblings like commit_safe_mode and safe_mode_status by focusing on rollback.

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: when you want to discard pending Safe Mode changes rather than commit them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like commit_safe_mode. The context of Safe Mode is implied but not elaborated.

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