geck_transaction_rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Restore' and does not disclose that the operation may overwrite an existing plugin, whether a pre-rollback backup is created, or what side effects occur during the restore.

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 focused sentence with no filler and uses precise terms upfront. It is concise and readable, though it is brief enough that important operational details are pushed entirely into the schema.

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 mutating rollback tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not clarify how plugin_name and game_dir scope the restore, how transaction_id_or_path and backup paths relate, or what conditions must be met for the operation to succeed. The output schema exists, so return format is not required, but invocation behavior is still incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning to transaction_id_or_path by mentioning 'or backup path inside the MCP backup directory'. It does not explain game_dir, plugin_name, or create_pre_rollback_backup, although their titles and defaults provide partial hints.

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 action ('Restore'), the object ('a plugin'), and the source ('transaction id or backup path inside the MCP backup directory'). This meaningfully distinguishes it from related tools like geck_transaction_begin, geck_transaction_list, and geck_backup_plugin, even though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 usage is implied: restore a plugin from a transaction id or backup path, which suggests a rollback/undo scenario. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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