elenchus_rollback

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

The description 'Rollback session to a previous checkpoint' is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it omits critical details: potential data loss, irreversibility, error handling (e.g., invalid session or round), or success confirmation. These gaps reduce agent trust.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 6 words). While it avoids unnecessary fluff, it is arguably too brief, missing key information that could be included without harming conciseness. It earns its place but does not efficiently convey all needed context.

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 complexity of a rollback operation (destructive and potentially reversible only to certain points), the description is incomplete. There is no output schema to explain return values, and the description does not cover edge cases, side effects, or error conditions. An agent might misuse this tool without more context.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (sessionId and toRound). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3, and this is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'rollback' and clearly names the resource 'session to a previous checkpoint'. This makes the tool's purpose immediately apparent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'elenchus_checkpoint', which might be related to creating checkpoints, but the action is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having a checkpoint created, or when rolling back is appropriate. The description lacks any context for an agent to decide between 'elenchus_rollback' and other session management tools.

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