restore_task_changes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names the action. It does not mention whether the restore overwrites current working-tree changes, whether a stash or restore point is required, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to committed changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 seven-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and the sentence directly communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-sentence description is too thin. It lacks behavioral details, prerequisites, and workflow context that an agent needs to invoke the tool safely, especially in a git-centric toolset where restore operations can have destructive side effects.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the schema already fully documents that no arguments are needed. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 specific action (restore), the resource (working-tree changes), and the scope (on a task branch), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling git tools such as get_changed_files and create_commit, which are the only other tools with similar subject matter.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'on a task branch' implies a context, but it does not explain what conditions should hold before calling restore_task_changes or what other tools might be more appropriate.

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