wm_rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses integrity verification against SHA-256, skip conditions (integrity failure, missing items, overwrites) with reasons, dry-run behavior, and the failure message for an unknown run id. This goes beyond what a minimal description would include.

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?

Four sentences, each dense with relevant information and no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavior, usage, and execution mode. Nothing can be removed without losing value.

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 only 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: what it does, how to select the run, the dry-run safety default, the execute flag, potential skip reasons, and an error case. No critical gap is apparent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the run id is the one 'printed by wm_clean' and that execute=true 'actually restore[s]' rather than previewing. This contextual linkage is useful, though the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Restore the items of a previous wm_clean run from the recycle area back to their original locations.' It clearly distinguishes this rollback operation from siblings like wm_clean, wm_audit, and wm_verify by naming wm_clean explicitly and explaining that this undoes a cleanup.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to undo a cleanup you just executed, passing the run id printed by wm_clean.' It also explains the execution model ('Dry-run by default; set execute=true to actually restore'), which tells the agent how to invoke it correctly and when to set the flag.

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