run_rollback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action ('Roll back') but does not mention potential consequences, prerequisites, or failure modes. The reference to delegating to 'd1-eloquent rollback' adds implementation detail but not operational transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Both sentences provide useful information: the primary action and the underlying command. There is no wasteful repetition or filler.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks broader context such as when to use it (e.g., after a migration run) or any cautions about rolling back. A complete description for this mutation tool could include minimal contextual guidance.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It correctly adds no redundant parameter information.

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 function: 'Roll back the last migration batch.' It uses a specific verb+resource structure and can be easily distinguished from sibling tools like run_migrate and run_fresh.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description ('Roll back the last migration batch'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when not to use it or what state the project should be in.

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