rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns 'DESTRUCTIVE', requires explicit user approval, and explains that it takes a fresh checkpoint first so the rollback is reversible. This is strong transparency for a destructive operation.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. The danger warning is front-loaded, followed by the usage constraint and the undo mechanism. Every sentence contributes critical information.

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?

For a destructive, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when it is safe to call, and how the operation can be undone. The schema provides the remaining per-parameter details, making the combined context sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the default-latest behavior already present in the id schema, but does not add significant meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. No deduction is needed because the schema handles parameter semantics thoroughly.

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 action ('Restore the working tree to a checkpoint') and identifies the resource and default behavior ('default: the latest'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkpoint (which creates) and checkpoints (which lists).

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 usage context: it must only be called after the user explicitly approves the rollback in chat. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like git_commit or restore-by-checkout.

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