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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=true. The description adds that the swap is atomic, causes no downtime, and that the currently live version is replaced but preserved. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond what annotations 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and key behavior, then the parameter source, then the user-confirmation requirement. No fluff, though the final clause slightly mixes confirmation and preservation.

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 rollback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavior, and usage prerequisites. The only gap is the conflicting deploy_id source, which is a significant inconsistency.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters. The description adds that deploy_id comes from deploy_list, but the schema says it comes from deploy_begin, creating a contradiction that could mislead the agent about where to obtain the required ID.

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 action ('Schaltet eine früher veröffentlichte Version ... wieder live') with the resource (Website) and adds atomic-swap/no-downtime scope. It references deploy_list for the deploy_id, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like restore_wordpress_backup or deploy_publish.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: before rolling back, clarify with the user which version is meant and obtain confirmation. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for comparison.

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