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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context: the previous version's files are kept next to current ones, rolling back again swaps them, and the game's address/scores/stats do not change. It also discloses the refusal condition (brak_poprzedniej). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict side effects.

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 a single paragraph with a clear first sentence stating the action, followed by behavioral details and a usage scenario. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds information. It could be slightly more concise, but the length is justified by the need to explain the swap behavior and error condition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, error condition, and a recommended workflow. It doesn't describe the return value or output format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a mutation, that is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter (slug) with a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that slug is the game address in the catalogue and referencing klyo_my_games as the source, which helps the agent know where to get the value. This is a modest but real addition beyond the schema.

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 rolls a game back to the previous version, identifies the resource (game slug), and distinguishes it from related operations like klyo_release_version. It also explains the mechanism (files kept, switch without uploading) and the error condition, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says when to use it: when the owner reports a new version breaks the game. It also provides a workflow after rollback (fix locally, run klyo-test, klyo_update_game, klyo_release_version), which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context and workflow make the appropriate use clear.

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