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

The annotative destructiveHint=true is reinforced by the description stating it 'reverses every change', which is appropriately transparent. The additional detail about skipping manual edits provides further behavioral context beyond the annotation, making the tool's side effects clear.

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, well-formatted sentence that front-loads the primary action and then explains the behavior and a key limitation. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is ideal in length and structure.

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?

Given the destructive nature of the tool, the description adequately covers the core effect (reverses changes) and the critical caveat (skips manual edits). It does not mention whether the undo itself is reversible or if there are other side effects, but these may not be essential for basic usage. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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?

The only parameter 'jobid' is a string with no schema description, and the tool description merely references it as 'by its job id'. While the name is somewhat self-explanatory, there is no guidance on how to obtain the job id or what format is expected. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool undoes a bulk agent run by job id, specifying the exact action and target. This is distinct from all sibling tools, as it is the only one that reverts agent runs, while others like get_app_run or list_app_runs only retrieve information.

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 provides a clear condition for use (when a bulk agent run needs to be undone) and includes a practical caveat (skips manual edits). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or situations where this tool should not be used, which is a minor gap.

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