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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the key observable behavior: the live agent immediately serves the earlier version, existing buyers retain access because entitlement is per purchase not per version, and unreviewed content can never be served. It also states the owner-only authorization requirement. This adds strong context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and packs the important procedural and safety guidance into three sentences. There is slight redundancy around 'published' and 'already-reviewed,' but every sentence contributes necessary information and there is no filler.

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 a 100% schema description, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the complete call flow, ownership constraint, eligibility rule, and side-effect behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly in both of its modes.

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 baseline is 3. The description's workflow instructions, such as 'OMIT `version` to LIST the prior published versions,' largely restate what the version parameter schema already says ('Omit to list the eligible targets first'). It adds safety context about prior published versions, but this does not substantially deepen the meaning of the individual parameters 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Roll YOUR OWN PUBLISHED agent BACK to a prior version.' It clearly identifies the operation, the required ownership, and the distinction between listing candidate versions and performing the rollback. No sibling tool matches this exact purpose, so it is sufficiently differentiated.

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 a clear two-step usage pattern: omit `version` to list eligible targets, then call again with `version` set to one of them. It also states when-not: only previously published versions are valid targets, and only the owner can perform the action. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as bump or withdraw, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is otherwise explicit and actionable.

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