Revert To Timestamp

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

The description states that the tool removes nodes and edges, which indicates a destructive operation. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint: false, directly contradicting the description. This contradiction creates confusion about the tool's side effects and provides no additional useful behavioral context beyond the conflicted 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target resource. It contains no filler and communicates the core behavior efficiently.

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 provides a basic understanding of the rollback operation, but it lacks details on timestamp interpretation (inclusive/exclusive), the exact meaning of 'subsequent' (relative to timestamp vs. current state), and any safety notes. With no output schema and a contradictory annotation, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'roll back' and identifies the resource 'state graph memory' with a clear effect: 'removing subsequent nodes and edges.' This makes the tool's function immediately understandable and distinguishes it from read-only state queries like get_state_at_timestamp.

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 implies the tool is for rolling back to a historical point in time, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as undo_last or get_state_at_timestamp. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context only implied.

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