rollback_changes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Delete' is consistent but not additive. It adds value by naming the WRITE_ENABLED requirement and the source of the changes array (rollback_token), which are not in annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, each conveying essential information: the action and a usage example, then a prerequisite. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive operation with a fully described schema, the description covers the action, typical source, and a key environment requirement. It does not discuss failure modes or return values, but these are not critical given the schema and annotations. It is adequately complete.

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 schema already describes the 'changes' parameter as 'Array of { table, sys_id } to delete', providing full coverage. The description adds a slight hint about where to obtain this array (rollback_token) but does not add detail about the nested fields. Given the high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action ('Delete a set of previously-created records') with a specific resource type, and the example referencing bulk_create_records distinguishes it from the broader delete_record tool. This is a specific verb+resource definition.

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 provides a concrete use case (rolling back records created by bulk_create_records) and an operational prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative deletion tools or state when not to use it, though the context is otherwise clear.

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