rollback_gene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a critical non-obvious trait: 'a rollback consumes its snapshot: it undoes one step, not a history.' That one-way, single-step semantics is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, keeping it shy of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the invocation mode and the key limitation. No filler; each sentence adds distinct 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 two-optional-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, listing mode, and the destructive single-step semantics well. It stops short of describing the return/confirmation or error conditions, which leaves a small gap.

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 schema already documents both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's 'call without gene_name' note largely restates the schema's 'Omit to list what is restorable' rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so it does not lift above baseline.

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 names a precise verb (undo/restore) and resource (locally installed Gene overwritten by install_gene), and anchors the operation to the sibling install_gene. An agent can distinguish it from install_gene, list_local_genes, and other gene tools without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly states how to invoke it in listing mode ('Call without gene_name to list what can currently be rolled back') and scopes the operation to a single step. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for broader history recovery or state when a rollback should be avoided.

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