rollback_trip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool is an administrative rollback requiring an explicit server-side enable flag, but it does not disclose that this is a mutating operation that likely overwrites trip state, whether it is reversible, whether it requires audit logging, or what side effects it has on the target trip.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The first sentence, 'Administrative rollback,' contributes little beyond the tool name, while the second sentence provides an environment prerequisite but does not front-load the core purpose or required inputs.

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?

This is a mutating administrative tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain behavior, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. It only notes that admin MCP writes must be enabled; it omits what rollback does to the trip, how target_version is interpreted, whether the operation is destructive, and what success/failure looks like.

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 names none of the three parameters (trip_id, target_version, actor_id). The word 'rollback' weakly implies a target version, but the description does not clarify how target_version is used, what actor_id represents, or what constraints apply to trip_id. The description adds no substantive parameter meaning beyond the schema's raw fields.

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 says 'Administrative rollback,' which largely restates the tool name 'rollback_trip' and adds only the vague modifier 'administrative.' It does not state the resource being rolled back, the action's effect, or how it differs from siblings like apply_change_proposal. This is closer to a tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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 description says the tool is 'Disabled by default' and that operators must enable admin MCP writes, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance. It provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as apply_change_proposal or validate_change_proposal.

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