Roll back deploy

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the interaction with autodeploys and the potential for unintended restoration. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's extra detail about autodeploy behavior earns a strong score.

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 description is moderately concise but contains some redundancy (e.g., both 'Roll back deploy' and the first sentence). It front-loads the purpose but includes a long link and extra explanation that could be tightened. It earns a 3 for being adequate but not optimally streamlined.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the critical behavior (role of autodeploys) and references the underlying API endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for its complexity, though it omits any mention of return values (which is acceptable since no output schema exists).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (deployId, serviceId). The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates that the rollback targets a previous deploy of a specified service. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('roll back deploy') and resource ('previous deploy of the specified service'), using a specific verb and resource. While it effectively communicates the core purpose, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it warns that rollback does not disable autodeploys and that an autodeploy might revert the rollback. It also offers a concrete alternative—using the Update service endpoint or Dashboard to toggle autodeploys. This fully satisfies the when-to-use and alternatives criteria.

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