glm_5_rollback_changes

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral information: it requires an explicit matching approval token and only restores files in the working directory. But it omits details on side effects (e.g., whether the checkpoint is consumed), idempotency, or authorization requirements.

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 just two sentences, tightly scoped. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second adds a crucial constraint. No redundancy or filler.

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 (3 required UUID parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the existence of similar siblings, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a proposal checkpoint is, what constitutes a matching approval token, or the post-restoration state, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 three parameters with 0% description coverage. The description indirectly implies the need for proposalId, checkpointId, and approvalId but does not explain their individual roles or formats beyond the schema. The agent may infer, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 verb 'Restore' and the resource 'proposal checkpoint', and specifies the scope 'only restores files in the proposal's working directory'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'glm_5_rollback_change_set' by emphasizing the need for an explicit matching approval token.

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 tool should be used after obtaining an explicit matching approval token, offering some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'glm_5_rollback_change_set' or 'glm_5_revoke_approval'.

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