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

Annotations already establish the destructive nature (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false). The description adds a meaningful precondition ('previous version required') but does not elaborate on side effects—such as whether the current version is removed, archived, or if the rollback is reversible. This is acceptable but not thorough for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler or redundancy. The first states the operation; the second states a critical precondition. Information is appropriately front-loaded.

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 covers the core operation and a key precondition, which is adequate for a simple rollback tool. However, for a destructive action it does not mention consequences (e.g., what happens to the current deployment), permissions, or any expected output. Given the sparse sibling context and lack of output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Both parameters (groupId, memo) have descriptions in the schema, and the pattern/format details are already present there. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it neither improves nor detracts from schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Rollback to the previous deployed version.' It clearly identifies the action (rollback) and the target (previous deployment), distinguishing it from related deploy/undeploy/schedule sibling tools. The added condition ('Only available if there is a previous version') further clarifies scope.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is valid—only when a previous version exists—which serves as an implicit exclusion for cases without one. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond that condition.

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