Roll Back to a Previous Website Release

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not clearly convey the mutating nature of the operation. The description adds valuable context: atomicity, health-checking, and the requirement for explicit human approval. This goes beyond the structured data and discloses important behavioral traits.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague filler.

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?

The core purpose and a critical behavioral constraint (human approval) are covered. However, with no output schema and incomplete parameter explanations, the agent is left unsure about the meaning of rootIndex and what the tool returns after health-checking. Gaps exist but not fatal for a simple rollback operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references releaseId via 'existing prior release' but does not mention rootIndex at all. This leaves a required parameter (releaseId) partially explained and an optional parameter (rootIndex) completely undefined.

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 clearly states the action: atomically repoint the current-release pointer to an existing prior release and health-check it. It uses a specific verb ('repoint') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like whatbox_website_deploy_execute (which promotes a new release) and whatbox_website_readiness (which checks status).

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 implies when to use this tool (when rolling back to a previous release) and sets a prerequisite (explicit human approval), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. No direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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