Batch rollback

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

The description says the tool 'rolls back a batch installation', an explicitly state-changing operation, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the annotations, and the description supplies no other behavioral context (what is undone, whether it is reversible, permissions).

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 purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the sphinx-style :type:/:rtype: boilerplate and a trivial :raises: note for a single optional parameter add redundant structure without new information. Not bloated, but not tight either.

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-sounding batch operation with 43 undocumented parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that misclassify it as read-only, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently invoke it or predict the effects.

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, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It only documents rollback_id (as a string 'associated with the batch rollback'), leaving the other 42 optional parameters — scope, packages, sys_id, force_commit, rollback_installs, etc. — entirely unexplained.

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 a batch installation') plus the required identifier, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the several sibling rollback tools (servicenow_app_repo_rollback, servicenow_rollback_plugin, servicenow_update_set_back_out), so 4 rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus batch_install or the other rollback/back-out siblings, and no prerequisites or recovery context. Only the bare action is described.

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