Roll a site back

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the useful non-publishing guarantee and the version-availability constraint. However, it never says the currently served version is superseded, which is the destructive effect implied by destructiveHint=true, so the mutation's impact on existing state is left undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite detail second. Every clause carries operational information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, parameter provenance, and the failure precondition. The main omission is what happens to the currently served deployment, which matters for a tool flagged destructive.

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 100%, and the schema already documents that `site` comes from list_sites and `deployId` from get_site's versions. The description restates the deployId provenance but adds no format, default, or constraint information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('serves an earlier version of a site again') and adds a differentiating scope note ('without publishing anything'), which separates it from sibling write tools like publish_files and publish_dir. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 a clear precondition and points to the discovery path ('get_site lists the versions') as well as a hard exclusion ('one whose files were collected cannot be rolled back to'). It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as pausing or republishing, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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