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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a mutation, and the description goes beyond it usefully: it discloses processing order (newest first) and partial-failure semantics (non-refundable purchases are reported rather than undone). It does not say whether an undo can itself be reversed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the primary behavior plus its ordering rule is front-loaded. The second sentence covers the one caveat an agent most needs before calling.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers outcome semantics but leaves gaps: no return shape beyond the hint that skipped purchases are 'listed,' no note on permissions or job eligibility, and no confirmation of reversibility. Adequate to call, not fully complete.

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% and the single parameter, jobId, is never mentioned in the description. An agent must infer from the tool name that the argument identifies the job to roll back, and nothing is said about which jobs are eligible. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 action on a specific resource: it reverses finished steps of a job, in newest-first order. The title supplies the 'golive job' framing, and the scope is distinguishable from siblings like create_job, get_job, and list_jobs. It stops short of 5 only because the body never names the job object itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the action ('reverses finished steps'), so an agent can infer this is the rollback path after a job has run. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of required job state or prerequisites. The statement about non-refundable purchases is a scope caveat, not routing guidance.

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