palinode_rollback

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description adds valuable nuance by stating it is 'Safe' and explaining why: it creates a new commit and preserves the old version. 'Defaults to dry run' is also helpful behavioral context that goes beyond the annotation flags. No contradiction with 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 two sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and the safety note plus dry-run default are packed into the second sentence without bloat.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why it is safe, and its default dry-run behavior. The schema covers the remaining parameter details. It could be slightly more explicit about what a non-dry-run rollback actually changes, but the current description is still adequately complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents file_path, commit, and dry_run, including the dry_run default and the commit source from palinode_history. The description mostly restates the revert/previous-version concept and adds no additional parameter-level nuance.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Revert a memory file to a previous version.' It also adds key semantics like 'creates a new commit preserving the old version in history,' which clarifies the operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from palinode_history or palinode_diff.

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 no clear 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance. The only indirect cue is in the schema where commit is described as coming from palinode_history, but the tool description itself does not explain when rollback should be chosen over other memory tools.

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