Undo a committed write by staging a new operation that restores the pre-commit content. The reversal goes through normal review, and commit_write applies it.
Undo a committed write: stages a NEW op restoring the pre-commit content (goes through normal review — commit_write applies it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commit_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important non-obvious fact: this is not an immediate undo, it stages a new op that must pass review and be applied by commit_write. It does not cover permissions, whether the revert can itself be undone, or failure behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the mechanism second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic surprise (staged, not immediate) and the follow-up call needed. Missing only the return value (e.g., the new staged op id) and error conditions.
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?
One required parameter (commit_id) at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Pre-commit content' and 'a committed write' strongly imply commit_id identifies the commit to revert, but the description never defines the parameter or its expected format.
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+resource ('Undo a committed write') and immediately clarifies the mechanism: it stages a NEW op rather than reverting in place. It names commit_write as the applier, which differentiates it from that sibling, but does not distinguish it from uncommit_write or discard_write.
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 phrase 'goes through normal review — commit_write applies it' implies the workflow (revert, then commit) but never states when to choose this over uncommit_write, discard_write, or stage_delete. Usage is inferable from context rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.