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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: it reverts schema AND code, does not roll back Neo4j data, and redeploys the graph API with the old schema. This is rich context that complements the destructiveHint annotation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a warning emoji to draw attention. Every sentence contributes useful information without verbosity.

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 destructive rollback tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is reverted, what is not, and how to find the target version. It does not describe the return value (e.g., job ID), but this is less critical given the clear scope and the presence of related tools like get_job_status.

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 explaining how to obtain the version parameter (via get_graph_version_history), and it clarifies the effect of the environment parameter indirectly through the redeployment statement. It does not override or duplicate schema details.

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 action ('Rollback a graph project to a previous version') and specifies the resource (graph project). It also distinguishes from related tools like rollback_project by noting it reverts schema and code, and by mentioning the deployment effect.

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 explicitly directs users to use get_graph_version_history to find the commit SHA, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It also warns that Neo4j data is not rolled back, which implies caution. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for non-graph projects or when not to use it.

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