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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that the retained build artifact is re-published, that a NEW Roblox version is minted pointing at the old build, and that behavior is fast/deterministic because nothing is rebuilt. It also enumerates failure semantics with retry guidance (404 unknown version, 422 no retained artifact, 409 Studio-open/rate-limit with 'a retry can succeed', 403/409 for invalid or unscoped Open Cloud key), which the destructiveHint/idempotentHint flags alone cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first sentence, then layers behavior and error semantics. Slightly dense in the error-code enumeration, but each clause carries actionable information rather than 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?

Covers prerequisites, mechanism, idempotency implications (new version per call), and full failure taxonomy for a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. Since an output schema exists, the return-value listing is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It defines `version_number` concretely (a previously-published version, discoverable in the Roblox Publishing card) and ties `project_id` to a `roblox_game` project. It still does not state the id format (UUID vs slug) or scoping for `project_id`.

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 ('Roll a Roblox project's place back to a previously-published version') with the scope ('previously-published') made explicit. No sibling tool covers version rollback, and the description preempts confusion with rebuild/deploy flows by saying it 'never rebuilds from source'.

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 operating context ('For a `roblox_game` project') and tells the agent where to source `version_number` (the web Roblox Publishing card lists published versions). It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling offers a competing rollback capability.

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