art.asset.rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits: does it delete the canonical version or just switch a pointer? Does it create a new version entry? Does it require permission? The description neither confirms nor denies any of these. The mention of 'optimistic lock' in the schema hints at concurrency safety, but the description itself doesn't explain the consequences or 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 sentence with no fluff. The key action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise given that the schema covers parameters.

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 the complexity of a rollback operation with four parameters, including an optimistic lock, the description lacks key details such as side effects (does it permanently discard the previous version?), preconditions (must the asset be in a certain state?), and concurrency behavior. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response indicates, but it doesn't. Overall, while it covers the basics, it leaves out critical operational context.

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?

Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, each parameter is described in the schema. However, the description adds only the concept of 'rollback' and 'canonical version', which provides some context but doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., why expected_current_version is needed). The schema descriptions are basic, so the description could have elaborated on the optimistic lock mechanism, but it doesn't, so the added value is minimal.

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 states the action (rollback) and the resource (canonical version), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from other art.asset.* tools like art.asset.promote or art.asset.archive_version, but the verb 'rollback' is specific enough to indicate a revert operation, distinguishing it from promote or update.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.asset.promote or art.asset.update. The description is a single sentence with no context about scenarios like reverting a bad deployment or precondition like asset must be in a certain state. The sibling tools include 'art.asset.archive_version' and 'art.asset.promote', which could be similar, but no exclusions are given.

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