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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by scoping the blast radius ("only the image changes; env and everything else stay"), stating the wait behavior, and warning that it replaces the running version. Minor imprecision: it says 40 seconds while the schema allows up to 45.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, followed by the mutation consequence. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no exposition, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers what changes, what is preserved, approval requirement, and waiting behavior. The only gap is the 40s/45s mismatch, which could cause an agent to under-set waitSeconds.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the image default and waitSeconds semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates image/default and wait intent without adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (rollback) and resource (workload) plus the precise mechanism: revert to the image the previous deployment ran, or an explicit image. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like update_workload and promote_workload.

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 a clear directive to obtain approval first because it replaces the running version, and notes the 40-second readiness wait. It does not name or contrast against sibling tools (e.g., update_workload, restart_workload) that might be confused with it, so it falls short of a 5.

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