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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the retained artifact replaces the active version after a successful rollout while the current version keeps serving on failure, and the call returns on acceptance rather than on liveness. It also explains idempotency-key semantics — same key returns the same rollback, a different target is refused — which the idempotentHint alone does not convey.

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?

Verb and target come first, followed by the eligibility constraint, then failure/rollout semantics and idempotency. Every sentence conveys distinct operational information; nothing is padding.

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, asynchronous mutation with no output schema, it discloses eligibility, atomicity, and acceptance timing. The only missing piece is how to confirm the rollback went live (e.g. which sibling to poll), a small gap against an otherwise complete definition.

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 carries the load: it defines deploymentId precisely (the prior successful deployment, sourced from get_function's rollback.targetDeploymentId) and specifies idempotencyKey replay behavior including refusal on target mismatch. projectId and functionId are left to their self-evident names and patterns ('permitted project'), which is a minor residual gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rolls an HTTP Function ... back to deploymentId') and constrains the target, which distinguishes it from the project-level eurobase_rollback, eurobase_redeploy and eurobase_promote siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit eligibility rule (the target must be the successful deployment active immediately before the current one) and routes the agent to eurobase_get_function for rollback.targetDeploymentId, including the eligible flag and the reason when ineligible. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with redeploy/promote, but the prerequisite is unambiguous.

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