request_company_blueprint_rollback

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: this is a request action that does not finalize the rollback, preventing an agent from treating it as the terminal destructive step. It also sets the precondition that the deployment must be 'exact' and 'active.' This is consistent with the annotations, which mark it as non-read-only and non-destructive.

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 a single 12-word sentence that front-loads the action and then adds the essential non-finalize caveat. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple three-string-parameter tool with no nested objects and an output schema, the core intent and a key caveat are present. However, it omits the two-phase workflow context, such as the need for a separate finalize step, possible approval or request semantics, and where the refs come from. An agent may need to infer lifecycle details from sibling tool names.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly adds meaning to deployment_id by saying the deployment must be 'exact' and 'active.' It gives no guidance on company_ref or project_ref formats, sources, or relationships, so the description does not compensate for the fully undocumented parameter schema.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'request rollback' for 'an exact active deployment.' The qualifier 'this does not finalize it' clearly separates this tool from the finalize_company_blueprint_rollback sibling and communicates its role as a request step rather than a completion step.

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 when to use it: when requesting a rollback for a specific active deployment. It also explicitly notes what it does not do ('does not finalize it'), giving an important exclusion. It does not name the companion finalize tool or list broader alternative scenarios, but the active-deployment precondition and non-finalizing caveat provide clear contextual guidance.

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