glm_5_rollback_change_set

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions restoring a checkpoint in the working directory but does not disclose whether it is destructive, reversible, or what permissions are needed. The behavioral impact is under-explained.

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 14-word sentence that immediately states the action and mechanism. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices completeness.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a sibling tool with similar name, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to reliably select and invoke this 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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the three parameters (proposalId, checkpointId, approvalId). It lacks any semantic guidance on how they relate to the change set or checkpoint restoration.

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 specifies the action (roll back), the resource (applied change set), and the mechanism (restoring its checkpoint inside the approved working directory). It distinguishes from the sibling 'glm_5_rollback_changes' by focusing on change sets and checkpoints.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like glm_5_rollback_changes or glm_5_review_change_set. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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