rollback_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions 'Prepare or execute' but does not explain what these modes entail, whether the operation is irreversible, or what happens to resources. The dangerous nature implied by the 'confirm_dangerous' parameter is not addressed.

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, which is concise. However, it lacks sufficient detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain modes, return values, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain any parameter. 'run_id', 'mode', and 'confirm_dangerous' are not described, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 tool performs 'rollback for resources tracked in a run journal', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The distinction from siblings like 'execute_plan' or 'approve_step' is implicit as rollback is a distinct action, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as having a run journal, or indicate scenarios where other tools should be preferred. The description only implies usage for rollback without any contextual cues.

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