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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful guard behaviour beyond that: the native rollback is refused if the addon has moved off from_chart_version or if chart_version is not older, which tells the agent the call can fail for declarative reasons.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the general behaviour comes first, then the per-flavour parameter mapping, then the refusal conditions. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the two operating modes, required inputs and failure preconditions. It leaves minor gaps (what the rollback does to dependent resources, whether it is reversible) but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning: it ties each optional parameter to a specific addon flavour and tells the agent the authoritative source for each value (get_addon_history, get_addon_details). That is the kind of disambiguation the schema does not spell out.

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 and resource ('Roll back an addon to an earlier version') and immediately splits the behaviour by addon type (Argo CD vs Ankra native), which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish it from sync_addon, upgrade_cluster or roll_cluster_to_version without reading the schema.

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?

Gives clear routing conditions: pass revision for Argo CD addons (from get_addon_history) versus chart_version/from_chart_version/reason for native addons (from get_addon_details). It does not name the alternative tools to prefer when a rollback is not what you want, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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