rollback_to_checkpoint

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness. The description adds the term 'Rollback' implying state reversion but provides no further behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, required permissions). It does not contradict the annotation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a parameter list. No redundant information, and the action is front-loaded. Every sentence is necessary.

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?

The description is adequate for a destructive operation with an output schema. However, it lacks state prerequisites (e.g., mission paused) or consequences (e.g., data loss warning), which would be helpful for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains the three parameters: mission_id (target mission), checkpoint_id (target checkpoint), reason (justification). This adds meaning beyond the schema's mere property names.

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 verb (rollback) and resource (mission), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'rollback' and 'rollback_preview' by requiring both mission_id and checkpoint_id parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other rollback 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_checkpoint' or 'rollback'. No prerequisites or context for invocation are mentioned.

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