rollback

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructive potential. The description adds context about storing hashes and marking follow-ups but doesn't disclose specific destructive behaviors (e.g., deleting checkpoints). 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Manage rollback checkpoints') and provide enough detail on sub-actions without unnecessary fluff.

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 checkpoint manager given the schema and annotations, but it lacks detail on action-specific behavior (e.g., what 'list' returns) or side effects. No output schema exists, so slight 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description repeats purpose/scope/commit hash but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Manage rollback checkpoints' with specific sub-tasks like storing commit hashes and marking follow-ups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_repo_state by focusing on rollback safety management.

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 implied ('so rollback is safer') but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like snapshot_repo_state. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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