Google api rollback

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond them by saying it undoes only the *latest* call, which implies repeat invocation walks backwards through audit history rather than being repeatable. It still omits what exactly gets reverted, what 'reversible' excludes, and any confirmation or authorization requirement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive action first and the scoping qualifier second; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical '(or audit_index)' is slightly cryptic but economical.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an undocumented confirm gate and 0% schema coverage, so the description carries most of the burden and does not meet it. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks enough to call it safely.

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% for both parameters. The description only parenthetically names audit_index as an alternative target, with no format or selection semantics, and the 'confirm' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description despite gating a destructive operation.

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 ('Undo') and a specific resource ('the latest reversible google.api.call'), scoped to a tenant. It clearly distinguishes itself from the forward sibling google.api.call, though the qualifier 'reversible' is left undefined, so an agent can't tell whether a given latest call is eligible.

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?

Usage is implied: invoke after a google.api.call you want to reverse. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling ads.rollback as an alternative, and no statement about what to do if the latest call is not reversible.

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