KoboToolbox Form Version History

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

Annotations already signal read/write safety and destructiveness, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond them: rollback changes form structure only, collected submissions remain, and fields that no longer exist drop out of exports. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that lets an agent reason about consequences.

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 well structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The use-case explanation and notes earn their place, and the Args/Returns/Notes sections are scannable. The Args list is slightly redundant with the schema but remains compact and helpful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return format, ordering ('newest first'), deployment dates, and post-rollback status. It also covers the main side effect and the optional-parameter behavior. The only things not spelled out, such as error conditions, are minor given the annotation coverage and schema richness.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage)Skip, so the description's Args section mostly repeats structured information. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the implication that omitting rollback_to lists history, which the schema itself already conveys.

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 opens with two concrete verbs and a specific resource: 'List a form's deployed versions, and roll back to one of them.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling functions that manage forms generically, and the rollback capability is unique among the listed tools.

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 gives an explicit, scenario-based 'when to use' instruction: 'the way back when a change breaks a live form.' It explains how it differs from a plain update by restoring old structure without touching collected submissions. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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