App repo rollback

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema: a MissingParameterError is raised when app_sys_id, scope, or version is absent. It does not explain what the rollback actually reverts or what state is discarded, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 docstring is structured and low on redundancy, with params, return, and raises clearly separated. However, the opening line's 'based on the provided parameters' is empty filler, and documenting only 3 of 43 params makes the structure informative for a small fraction of the actual surface.

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 43-parameter, zero-required-schema mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering parameters, the description is far too thin. It does not clarify which of the many optional fields are relevant to a rollback versus unrelated operations, leaving an agent without enough to call it 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% across 43 parameters, and the docstring documents only 3 of them (app_sys_id, scope, version) with type hints. That leaves roughly 40 parameters — including booleans like rollback_installs, force_commit, and auto_upgrade_base_app — undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('rollback an application in the repository'), which distinguishes it from install/publish siblings. The trailing phrase 'based on the provided parameters' is filler and adds nothing, and it never names the sibling rollback tools (rollback_plugin, batch_rollback) it could be confused with.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as servicenow_rollback_plugin, servicenow_batch_rollback, or the install/publish siblings in the app_repo family. No prerequisites, ordering constraints, or environment conditions are stated.

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