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

With only sparse annotations (openWorldHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false), the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses a great deal: pinning so the 20-version history never purges, all-or-nothing set semantics, code-only rollback with explicit exclusions (state, records, files, secrets), error format listing which apps came back and which did not, and retry-safety of revenir. These details go far beyond the annotations.

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?

The core purpose and action breakdown are front-loaded and every sentence conveys needed behavior for a complex four-action tool. However, the prose is dense and somewhat run-on, with awkward phrasing ('It and PINS those versions', 'nom labels it'), so structure could be improved with clearer action-by-action separation.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is complete: it explains milestone scope, per-action behavior, constraints, failure modes, retry semantics, and prerequisites. An agent has enough information to select the right action and invoke it correctly without opening the schema.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real semantic value: it explains nom labels the milestone, apps narrows the set for poser, jalon is required for revenir/retirer, and, critically, that managementToken proves one app only (a parameter the schema leaves undocumented). It also adds cross-cutting limits (at most 5 milestones, each pins at most 9 apps) that clarify lister output.

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?

The description names the four concrete actions (poser, lister, revenir, retirer) and the resource (milestones over a system of linked/graduated apps anchored at dropId). It clearly distinguishes this tool's scope from siblings like dropyour_rollback by stating the milestone covers every app in the system and rolls back code pointers only, not app state.

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?

It gives per-action usage guidance: poser sets, lister lists, revenir rolls back, retirer removes; it also states prerequisites (connected account for multi-app milestones) and exclusions (simple pages have no version history). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as dropyour_rollback, so it stops short of a full when-to-use-vs-alternative map.

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