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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered elsewhere. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the hard availability constraint referencing policy P-058. It doesn't state what happens to the currently live deployment or whether the action is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the availability caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what it does and the key gating condition. It leaves some minor gaps: effect on the current live version, permission requirements, and error behavior, none of which are blocking for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters (memo, groupId) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter formats or expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 target: roll back to the previous deployed version. This is clearly distinct from siblings like lexq_deploy_publish, lexq_deploy_undeploy, and lexq_deploy_schedule. It does not explicitly name a sibling it contrasts with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 an explicit precondition for use: a previous version must be ACTIVE and its effective end must not have passed (P-058). That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative action (e.g., redeploy via publish/undeploy) when the precondition fails.

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