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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context by scoping the effect to 'new calls' only, implying in-flight/existing calls are untouched and existing versions are not deleted. It still omits permissions, reversibility, and whether the target version must be a specific prior publish, so the disclosure is useful but partial.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the behavioral effect and free of padding. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is what drives the gaps elsewhere rather than serving as a model of completeness.

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?

A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters is described in a single nine-word sentence. An agent still cannot tell which id to supply, what permissions are needed, or what happens on success, so the description is well short of what this tool needs.

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?

Three required parameters, all UUIDs, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotation help. The description only hints at the meaning of 'version' (a previously published version); it says nothing about 'id' (presumably the agent) or 'workspaceId', so the two other parameters remain opaque.

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 concrete effect — redirecting new calls to a previously published version — which identifies the verb (roll back) and the resource (agent/version) well enough that an agent can act. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings such as agents_publish or agents_save, so sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. the version must already be published), and no alternative named. The agent is left to infer that this is the revert path and that agents_publish is the forward path.

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