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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, but the description goes further by itemizing exactly what the tool never does: sign, publish, delete history, or change authority. This helps the agent set accurate expectations about the prepared artifact and its side-effect-free boundary.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a tight list of non-actions. Every word carries signal.

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?

Given the complete schema coverage, the output schema, and the read-only annotations, the description supplies the necessary operational boundary and scope. It falls just short of full completeness by not describing prerequisites or the follow-up flow after the prepared artifact is produced, but those are not required for invocation given the surrounding 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?

All six parameters have full schema descriptions, so the input schema already carries the documentation burden. The description adds useful context like 'retested' and 'owner-signable,' but it does not materially extend individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: prepare an owner-signable rollback to a previously promoted, retested skill version. It clearly distinguishes this from the many other prepare_* siblings by naming the rollback objective and the constraints around signing and mutation.

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 usage context: use it when an owner-signable rollback to a promoted, retested skill version is needed. The 'Never signs...' statement also clarifies that this tool is not for actually signing or executing the rollback, though it does not name a corresponding alternate tool for that later step.

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