memkernel_rollback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that later events are reverted but preserved in the audit log, and that recovery is possible by forking. It omits prerequisites such as lease/confirmation requirements and whether the rollback is atomic or interrupts in-flight work.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by consequence and recovery. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's effect and recovery path for a one-parameter destructive operation. Remaining gaps are prerequisites (permissions/lease state) that would fully close the loop for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 0% and the single integer parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It identifies what target_event_id means and directs the agent to memkernel_history to obtain valid values, which is meaningful guidance beyond the bare property name.

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?

States a specific verb (roll back) plus the exact resource and scope (the active branch's live timeline) and the anchor (target_event_id). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like memkernel_checkout, memkernel_fork_investigation, and memkernel_history.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: obtain event ids via memkernel_history and explains the recovery route (fork from retained events). It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g., whether an active lease or an alternative branch operation is preferred instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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