vm_rollback_update

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether rolling back discards or preserves later revisions, whether the operation is reversible, or what a success/failure response looks like — all critical for a mutation tool that rewinds history.

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?

A single tight sentence with the precondition front-loaded and the edge case appended. Dense but each clause earns its place; only 'procedure' is slightly under-defined.

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 history-rewriting mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description should cover irreversibility, authorization format, and post-rollback state. It hints at the human-approval gate but leaves the mechanics and consequences unstated.

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 0%, so both parameters need the description. The 'revision' parameter is genuinely enriched (ancestor revision; empty string means the initial empty set), which is real added meaning. But 'user_authorization' is never explained — no format, no source, no statement that it must encode the human's approval — despite being required.

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?

States a specific verb ('restore') and a specific resource ('an ancestor procedure revision'), and the empty-revision case is spelled out. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings such as vm_apply_update or vm_propose_update, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'On explicit human instruction' gives a genuine precondition for invocation, which is more than most definitions offer. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer vm_apply_update/vm_propose_update over a rollback, nor on what constitutes valid 'explicit human instruction'.

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