rollback

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by describing a destructive operation that changes memory state. It additionally discloses the dry_run parameter for previewing changes, which adds behavioral context 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 concise (8 lines) with clear structure: a summary statement, format details, and an args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema mentioned, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, return type, and behavioral implications. No gaps remain.

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 0% coverage, meaning no descriptions within the schema properties. The description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: target format (ISO/relative) and dry_run purpose (preview vs apply).

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 'Rollback memory to a point in time,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. Among siblings like 'forget' or 'recall,' 'rollback' is uniquely identifiable and distinct.

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 provides clear usage context by specifying acceptable timestamp formats (ISO and relative expressions). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'forget' or 'recall', leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.

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