rollback_sitemap_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description usefully clarifies the non-obvious boundary that it does not publish, but it never says what state is overwritten on restore, whether the rollback is reversible, or what permissions are required — significant omissions for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important scoping fact ('Does not publish'). No filler, though the phrase 'verified ... saved ETag' is vague enough that it isn't fully earning its space.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and half of its parameters undocumented, the description does the minimum: it identifies the action and rules out publishing. It leaves out what 'verified' means, what a failed hash check does, and what the restore actually changes in the sitemap.

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 coverage is 50%: expected_hash and environment_profile are documented in the schema while dry_run and journal_id are not. The description partially compensates by linking 'Preview' to the dry-run mode and referencing a 'saved ETag' that maps to expected_hash, but it calls that value an ETag while the schema defines it as a planHash, terminology that could mislead during execution.

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 gives a specific verb pair ('Preview or restore') and a specific resource ('a verified SiteMap journal entry'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like rollback_record_journal, save_sitemap_with_journal, and publish_sitemap. It does not explicitly name those siblings, and 'verified' is left undefined, keeping it short of a 5.

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 only implied: the 'Preview or restore' phrasing hints that dry_run selects between the two modes, and 'Does not publish' tells the agent this is not the publish path. However, no alternative tool is named, no prerequisites (such as needing a hash from plan_sitemap_publication) are stated, and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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