rollback_service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds real semantic value by explaining what 'rollback' concretely does (redeploy the previous version). However, it omits the critical behavioral fact that dry_run defaults to true, meaning the call does not actually mutate unless explicitly overridden — a safety-relevant detail given destructiveHint=true.

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 zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-sized for a destructive four-parameter operation, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should cover permissions, reversibility, dry-run behavior, and the required reason/incident context. It covers none of these, leaving the agent materially under-informed before an irreversible action.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. Only `service` is implied by the prose; the required `reason` string, the `dry_run` default, and the optional `incident_id` linkage are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb+resource: it redeploys the prior version of a named service, which is more precise than the bare name 'rollback_service'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling restart_service (a restart vs. a redeploy of the previous version), but never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as restart_service, verify_recovery, or explain_incident. The agent must infer that this is the escalation path after a bad deploy.

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