rollback_branch

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, explaining that the operation log is immutable and rollbacks are reversible. This clarifies that the tool is destructive but safe due to immutability. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context. It lacks details on error handling or return values, but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description implicitly defines both parameters: 'branch' is identified by '[branch]' and 'to_op' as 'past operation ID'. This provides sufficient meaning for a 2-parameter tool, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero documented parameters.

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 tool's action: rolling back a branch to a past operation ID. It specifies the resource (branch) and action (rollback), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_branch or delete_branch.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: as a 'safety net' when contradictions arise from LLM edits. It also notes that rollbacks are reversible due to the immutable log, implying it can be used repeatedly. However, it does not list situations where the tool should not be used.

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