ai-agent-channel

undo_backfill

Restore records retired by a cleanup pass, reversing only cleanup-made retirements so an incorrect backfill can be corrected. Retirements from votes or new pin versions stay permanent.

Instructions

Undo a cleanup: put back records that backfill_superseded retired. Every other guard on that tool makes a mistake less likely; this one makes it fixable, which is the only defence that works against the mistake nobody predicted — and until now the cost of a wrong retirement was one-sided, because superseded_at looks identical on a right and a wrong one and the rule cannot be replayed to find out. Deliberately narrow: ONLY retirements made by a cleanup pass can be undone. A proposal quenched by a vote or by a new pin version is ordinary causal quenching, and making that undoable would let anyone rewrite the channel's memory. Both the retirement and the undo stay in message_history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes
`reason`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the undo is narrow by design, superseded_at is indistinguishable between correct and incorrect retirements, and both the retirement and the undo persist in message_history (audit trail). It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens to the record state after restore.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are rhetorical editorializing ('the only defence that works against the mistake nobody predicted') that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The genuinely useful constraint about narrow scope is buried inside the bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope and audit behavior. However, for an annotation-free mutation with 0% parameter coverage, it should say more about the identifiers to pass and the effect on the restored records, leaving a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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, yet it never explains what 'ids' refers to (presumably the retired record IDs) or what 'reason' is for or how it is stored. With two undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about argument meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Undo a cleanup: put back records') and names the sibling it reverses ('backfill_superseded retired'). An agent can distinguish this from backfill_superseded and reopen_message without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit scope limit and exclusion: 'ONLY retirements made by a cleanup pass can be undone,' with a stated rationale that vote-quenched or pin-version-quenched proposals are ordinary causal quenching and out of scope. It does not route to a named alternative for those excluded cases, so it falls short of a full 5.

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