Rollback project transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for adding real behavioral detail beyond that — reverse-order restoration, per-snapshot hash verification, and explicit partial-rollback reporting rather than silent inconsistency.

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 dense sentence with the key qualifier ('Controlled write') front-loaded and no wasted words. Tight and appropriately sized for the operation it describes.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/safety profile. The description supplies the mutation semantics; only the transactional preconditions and relationship to the commit/begin siblings are left implicit.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially compensates: 'Controlled write' loosely signals the confirmWrite guard, but neither transactionId nor the mandatory confirmation is explained. The const:true on confirmWrite is self-documenting, keeping this at a baseline 3.

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/rollback) and resource (applied schematic primitive snapshots) plus mechanism (reverse order, hash verification). It is clearly distinct from the begin/commit siblings by wording, though it never names them explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied through the transaction vocabulary — an agent infers this is the undo path within the begin/commit/validate family, but the description never states when to prefer rollback over commit or what preconditions (an open transactionId) apply.

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