rollback_frankability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the snapshot mechanism and the return format. However, it does not explicitly warn about the destructive nature of the operation (e.g., overwriting current files) or mention error/failure cases. Still, it adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, a contextual explanation of snapshots, usage guidance, parameter definitions, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff, making it highly readable and scannable.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema (as signaled), the description covers the core functionality, parameters, return shape, and references a sibling for listing opIds. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid op_id, rollback failure) but is generally complete for a well-understood operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return details, but the description already includes them.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does: 'symbols_dir: Absolute path to the symbols/ directory' and 'op_id: The opId to roll back to (from a prior apply-edits result).' This adds meaning beyond the bare titles 'Symbols Dir' and 'Op Id', earning a strong score, though it could include more detail about validation or format requirements.

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 action: 'Restore a Symbols project to its state before a specific op ran.' This uses a specific verb ('restore') and resource ('Symbols project'), and distinguishes it from siblings like apply_frankability_edit_ops and snapshots_frankability by focusing on undoing a previous operation.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to undo a specific op (or a chain by walking backwards through opIds listed by snapshots_frankability).' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and references a sibling for discovering opIds. The description also mentions the snapshot mechanism, giving context for how the undo works.

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