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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is ADDITIVE, does NOT destroy history, creates a new commit whose tree matches the target, preserves history, and allows rolling back the rollback. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and safety profile.

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 description is compact yet structured: a one-line summary, a behavioral clarification, and a numbered workflow. Every sentence is purposeful, with no redundancy. The use of formatting (capitals, bullets) enhances readability without bloating length.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, workflow, and parameter selection. It explains the safety mechanism and tells the user how to proceed before and after. The only minor omission is explicit mention of remote/push behavior, but 'Roll prod' implies remote, and the workflow covers deployment next steps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by placing the target parameter in the workflow context, explaining that safe-* tags should be found via list_versions. This enriches understanding of how to populate the parameter beyond the schema's static description.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Roll prod (`main` branch) back to a previous state.' It uses a specific verb (roll back), identifies the resource (prod main branch), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like patch/promote/write by describing the additive commit behavior. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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?

The description provides a clear three-step workflow: find a safe-* tag with ateam_github_list_versions, invoke rollback, then deploy with ateam_build_and_run. This gives strong guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare to alternative revert strategies (e.g., ateam_github_patch), so a minor gap remains.

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