Rollback plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the plugin_id requirement and the MissingParameterError raise, which is useful but minimal. It says nothing about what a rollback actually reverts, whether it affects installed apps, or how rollback_installs/force_commit-style flags change behavior.

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?

Front-loaded verb+resource sentence followed by compact Sphinx-style param/return/raises lines. No rambling, though the :type:/:rtype: boilerplate is low-value padding rather than 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?

For a 43-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is drastically under-specified. A caller cannot tell which of the 42 undocumented optional fields govern the rollback, what the response contains, or what side effects to expect.

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?

The schema has 43 parameters at 0% description coverage, all nullable with null defaults, and the description documents only plugin_id. Effectively 42 parameters carry no semantics anywhere, and the description offers no help in identifying which optional fields matter for a rollback.

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+resource: roll back a plugin, keyed by plugin_id. This is clear enough to distinguish it from activate_plugin or the SDK tools, but it never distinguishes it from the many other rollback siblings (app_repo_rollback, batch_rollback, update_set_back_out, update_set_retrieve), so scope differences remain ambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives despite a crowded rollback/back-out sibling set. The agent is told only that plugin_id is needed, not when this tool is the right choice over other rollback entry points.

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