Restore a named rollback point to overwrite repository files, but only when the confirm parameter contains the authorized restore name to prevent accidental changes.
点名恢复某个回滚点（会覆盖仓库内对应文件）。必须传 confirm="用户已授权恢复 <回滚点名>"，否则拒绝。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| 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 mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that it overwrites specific files and mandates a user-authorization confirm string, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the critical confirm requirement, with no redundant words.
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 destructive effect and the mandatory confirm safeguard; the presence of an output schema handles return values, so nothing essential is missing.
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?
With zero schema description coverage, the description fully explains the 'name' parameter as the rollback point and provides a precise template for the 'confirm' parameter, making parameter usage unambiguous.
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 of restoring a named rollback point and explicitly notes that it overwrites repository files, which differentiates it from sibling tools like rollback_create and rollback_list.
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?
It specifies the required confirm parameter with an exact format, giving a clear usage condition. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the scope is well implied by the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.