cb_rollback

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds genuinely useful extra context beyond the annotations: the mandatory user-approval gate ('必须由用户明确批准') and the archive-target semantics. It doesn't overstate risks but adds a meaningful operational constraint.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action (rollback mainline to archive) and appends the ref format and approval requirement. No wasted words; the most important behavioral constraint (approval) is well placed at the end for emphasis.

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 rollback with no output schema, the description could state more about consequences: whether the rollback is reversible, what happens to the current mainline state, or whether uncommitted changes are lost. The note field's CHANGELOG behavior is in the schema, but the operational effects of a destructive revert are left underspecified.

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%, so all three parameters (ref, note, root) are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal semantic value by clarifying that ref resolves to an archived version and that user approval is tied to it, but the note and root semantics are already fully covered by the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb (回滚/rollback), a clear resource (主线/mainline), and a precise target (归档版本/archived version). It's specific enough to distinguish from branch-oriented siblings like cb_checkout and cb_branch, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly. The action and scope are unmistakable.

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 gives meaningful usage context: ref may be a version number or an archive directory name, and rollout requires explicit user approval. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its alternatives (e.g., cb_checkout vs cb_rollback, or cb_discard for discarding work), and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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