Prepare an OtaKit revert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and 'Makes no change' largely restates that. However, the description adds genuinely non-annotation context: that the call verifies currency of the release and previews both the target release and the built-in fallback path, which tells the agent what the operation does behaviorally.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary action (verify + preview) front-loaded and the no-side-effect guarantee placed at the end where it matters most.

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 read-only preview tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the precondition check and what the preview reveals, including the fallback case. Only the workflow linkage to revert_release is left for the agent to infer.

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 100% for both parameters (appId documents its local-connection optionality, releaseId is defined), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Specific verbs (verify, preview) plus the resource and scope: it states that it checks whether a release is current and shows what would become current, including the built-in fallback. This clearly separates it from sibling revert_release (which performs the change) and prepare_release.

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 phrase 'Makes no change' and the preview framing strongly imply a dry-run step before revert_release, but no sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is stated. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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