rollout_undo_deployment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by warning there is 'No clean automatic inverse' and explaining the manual recovery path (re-deploy the intended image/revision). That irreversibility/recovery detail is genuinely additive beyond the structured hints.

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 risk tag and rollback semantics are front-loaded in the first two lines, and the Args block is terse. The Args section duplicates schema fields, but that duplication is justified given 0% schema description coverage.

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 high-risk, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers default behavior, dry-run preview, and the absence of an automatic inverse. It stops short of stating required permissions or failure modes, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents all five parameters including the non-obvious 'to_revision: 0 = previous' convention and the namespace omission default. 'target: k8s target name from config' is the thinnest entry, leaving a small gap, but overall it compensates well for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Roll a deployment back to a prior revision') and advertises the default target revision. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as undo_apply, undo_list, or rollout_restart_deployment, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this operation.

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 implied usage context via 'Defaults to the immediately previous revision' and 'Pass dry_run=True to preview', which tells the agent when a preview is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to alternative tools like rollout_history for inspecting revisions before choosing to_revision.

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