Creates a named rollback point for specified files before modifications, storing backups outside the repository and recording the point in the audit report for safe reverting.
修改任何文件之前调用：把这些文件备份成一个有名字的回滚点（存放在被审查仓库之外），并把名字钉在报告里。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| files | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (writes), destructiveHint=false (safe), and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: files are backed up, stored outside the repo, and the name is pinned in the report. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the non-destructive nature. It does not contradict annotations.
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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the directive 'Call before modifying any files.' It contains no fluff, but it is a bit dense and could benefit from separation of the report-pinning aspect. Overall, it is efficient.
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?
The description covers the core action, storage location, and reporting integration. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Missing details include behavior on repeated calls (though idempotent hint covers that) and the purpose of the 'note' parameter. It is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'these files' for the files parameter, but does not explain the 'name' and 'note' parameters at all. The description says 'named rollback point' so name is implied, but note is completely unexplained. This is a significant gap given zero schema documentation.
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 tool's function: back up files into a named rollback point before modification, stored outside the repository, and pin the name in the report. It distinguishes itself from rollback_list and rollback_restore by its specific verb 'back up' and explicit context of pre-modification.
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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call before modifying any files.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of siblings and the directive are clear. It could be improved by noting that rollback_restore is for restoring, but that's not necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.