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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no rebuild occurs, the active release is replaced (matching the destructiveHint), and the call returns as soon as the rollback is accepted rather than after it goes live — an important async detail not encoded in any structured field. The idempotency sentence elaborates rather than merely repeating idempotentHint. Missing only failure/blast-radius detail, e.g. what happens to in-flight traffic.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then the release-replacement effect, then the timing/idempotency contract. No filler and every clause carries operational meaning.

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 3-required-param mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens (release replaced), when it returns (before live), and replay behavior — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is what the accepted response actually contains, though 'returns the same deployment' hints at a deployment object.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It well explains deploymentId's validity constraint (must be a successful deployment with retained output) and idempotencyKey's replay semantics, but says nothing about projectId beyond the vague 'permitted project', and doesn't state whether deploymentId must be a prior release of that same project.

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?

Names the specific verb and resource (rolls a project back) and disambiguates mechanism precisely: 'republishing the build output of deploymentId... without rebuilding' versus re-building. This clearly separates it from siblings like eurobase_redeploy and eurobase_rollback_function, which act on different resources.

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?

Implied preconditions are present ('a permitted project', 'a successful deployment whose output is still retained', 'after a successful rollout'), which tells the agent when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit comparison to the sibling eurobase_redeploy or eurobase_promote to tell the agent which recovery path to pick, so routing is left to inference.

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