Revert an OtaKit release

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior: cancelling an in-flight rollout, the expected-state concurrency guard, and truthful reporting of pending manifest synchronization. It does not describe permissions or error handling in depth, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and scope before the side-effect and requirement clauses; nothing is redundant. It is densely packed with semicolon-joined clauses rather than being maximally scannable.

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, idempotent mutation with no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the action, scope, a key side effect, preconditions, and a hint about the response ('reports pending manifest synchronization'). Return shape and failure modes remain unspecified, but these are minor given the rich per-parameter schema and annotations.

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%, so every parameter (appId, releaseId, forceImmediate, idempotencyKey, expectedRolloutPercent, expectedCurrentReleaseId) is already documented with formats and constraints. The description only alludes to 'expected state and an idempotency key', adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (revert) plus resource (the reviewed current release) with an explicit scope qualifier ('for its exact lane') that separates it from prepare_revert and set_rollout_percent. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It states the precondition of a reviewed current release and notes that reverting a rolling-out release cancels the rollout, which implies when the tool applies. However, it never names the sibling to run first (prepare_revert) or says when not to use this tool, so routing is left to inference.

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