remediation_record_rollback

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the binding action. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, what persists, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the transaction is not in rollback state.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action and object are front-loaded. It is concise without becoming a pure tautology, though it could add useful context without becoming verbose.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it states the action and a key precondition. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits failure behavior, expected response, and any additional state requirements, making it incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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 description maps the two parameters to domain concepts: transactionId is the transaction and receipts are the rollback receipts. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but with 0% schema coverage it still leaves the receipts element format and any constraints unspecified.

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 states a specific operation—binding rollback receipts to a transaction—and includes the precondition that the transaction is in rollback state. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like remediation_record_execution, but the rollback-specific subject makes the intended action reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'transaction that entered rollback state' implies when this tool should be used, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit comparison with sibling tools such as remediation_preflight or remediation_verify, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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