rollout_undo_deployment

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

The description notes high risk, no clean automatic inverse, and the ability to preview with dry_run. With no annotations provided, it effectively discloses behavioral traits important for a rollback 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a brief overview followed by bullet points. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: risk level, default behavior, lack of inverse, dry run capability, and full parameter documentation. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and safely use the tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description includes a detailed Args section explaining all five parameters: name, namespace, to_revision (0 = previous), dry_run, and target. This adds full semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and defaults.

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 it rolls a deployment back to a prior revision, with a [WRITE][risk=high] label indicating a destructive write operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rollout_restart_deployment and rollout_pause by focusing on undo.

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 explains default behavior (previous revision), lack of clean inverse, and recommends re-deploying to move forward. It suggests using dry_run=True to preview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rollout_history or rollout_status.

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