rollback_scope

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value by explaining what is destroyed ('current state covered by that snapshot') and why non-idempotency matters ('a second call can select a different snapshot, so inspect results before retrying'). The only redundancy is the return-value sentence, which an output schema already covers.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the restore effect comes first, then prerequisites, then the destructive-retry warning. The one expendable sentence is the return-value summary, which the output schema already supplies.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation this covers everything an agent needs: effect scope, pre-inspection siblings, the confirm gate, the initialization prerequisite for project scope, and the retry hazard. Return values are handled by the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description contributes a precondition not present in the schema: project scope requires initialization before rollback can succeed. The confirm semantics restate the schema's default-false rejection behavior rather than adding to it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore the latest created snapshot in a scope') plus the exact effect ('replacing current state covered by that snapshot'), which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings list_snapshots and list_audit_events it names.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to run list_snapshots and list_audit_events before choosing recovery, states that project scope requires initialization, and explains that confirm=true is required while false rejects without restoring — covering both the when-to-use and the gate condition.

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