rollback_to_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions legacy status and speed comparison. It does not explain side effects, whether the operation is destructive, permissions required, or what happens to current files, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a rollback 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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the 'Legacy' warning and alternative reference each earning their place. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite the simple two-parameter schema, this is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation support. The description fails to convey behavioral impact, return values, or prerequisites, leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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%, with both sessionId and editId already described meaningfully in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb 'Rollback' with a clear resource 'files to a previous version,' making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling it 'Legacy' and explicitly referencing the faster alternative 'restore_file_snapshot.'

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 clear usage context by marking the tool as 'Legacy' and noting that 'restore_file_snapshot is much faster,' which steers users toward the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state any exclusions or specific scenarios where rollback_to_version should still be used.

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