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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explicitly warning that 'schema AND code' are reverted and that 'Database data is NOT rolled back.' This is critical behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation. It also outlines the redeployment monitoring step.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the primary purpose, includes a clear warning, then gives procedural guidance. Each sentence earns its place, and the use of emoji draws attention to the warning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a destructive rollback operation: it states the effect, the warning, and the follow-up steps. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a job ID or status), which is a minor gap given there is no output 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the user to use get_version_history to find the commit SHA, which directly informs the 'version' parameter. This contextual hint goes beyond the schema's 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 action: 'Rollback a project to a previous version.' It also specifies that it reverts schema AND code, which is a specific resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool rollback_graph_project, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use: 'Rollback is useful when a schema change breaks deployment.' It also names follow-up tools (get_version_history to find the commit SHA, get_job_status to monitor redeployment) but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives like rollback_graph_project.

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