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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one key trait — the database is not rolled back — which is real behavioral context for a mutation tool. However, it omits permissions required, reversibility, downtime/impact on running services, and failure behavior, so the disclosure is incomplete.

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 compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat second. Every phrase earns its place with no waste.

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?

Adequate for a mutation tool: the action and the main non-obvious caveat are stated. But with no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral detail (auth, effect on live traffic, rollback failure handling) would be needed to fully complete the picture.

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 67%: env and project are documented but release is not. The description compensates by explaining that release is an optional target ('its previous release, or a given release id'), giving meaning the schema lacks. This is genuine added value over the structured fields.

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: pointing an environment at its previous (or a specified) release. The scope is clear and the parenthetical about a release id clarifies the target. It implicitly separates itself from db.restore and git.revert via the database caveat, though it never names a sibling directly.

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 rather than stated: the 'Does not roll back the database' clause hints that db.restore/db.snapshot handle database recovery, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-choose-alternatives guidance. An agent must infer the routing.

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