Restore Commit

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) already declare the destructive nature, and the description adds that it targets a specific commit. However, it does not detail what is destroyed (e.g., later commits, uncommitted changes) or whether the restore is irreversible, missing an opportunity to add value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (two parameters) and the presence of destructiveHint in annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits consequences like loss of uncommitted changes or later commits, and lacks any mention of output or post-conditions, which is a notable gap for a destructive mutation 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Agent id' and 'Commit SHA to restore'). The description itself does not add any further semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action (restore) on a specific resource (the repo) to a specific state (that of a given commit). This distinguishes it from sibling git tools like list_commits or get_commit_snapshot, which do not modify the repo.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any cautionary notes. However, the description implies its use when reverting to a prior commit, so the usage context is reasonably inferable.

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