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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds valuable context: 'Nothing is deleted; you can roll forward the same way,' which clarifies that the operation is reversible and non-destructive in terms of data loss. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the reassurance about non-deletion is concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, the reversibility, and the deploy_id source is in the schema. The only minor gap is that 'site' is not described, but the parameter name is self-explanatory in context. The destructiveHint annotation covers the risk profile.

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 50%: deploy_id has a description ('A deploy_id from list_deploys'), but site has none. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers half the parameters, and the description's mention of 'earlier deploy' implies deploy_id refers to a historical deploy, but it doesn't explicitly explain site.

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 verb and resource: 'Make an earlier deploy live again.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deploys or delete_files. The title 'Roll back to a deploy' reinforces the purpose without being a tautology.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to revert to an earlier deploy. It also notes that nothing is deleted and you can roll forward the same way, which gives context for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the alternative (list_deploys) obvious.

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