Revert a deployment by rolling back a committed update set. Provide the update set sys_id and reason to undo changes.
Rollback a deployment by reverting an update set. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason for rollback | |
| update_set_sys_id | Yes | Committed update set sys_id to rollback |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the mechanism 'reverting an update set,' which provides some behavioral context beyond the name, but does not mention consequences, reversibility, or required permissions.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and mechanism. There is zero wasted text, and the '[Write]' tag is redundant but harmless.
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 tool has only 2 parameters, schema covers them fully, and annotations provide the destructive hint. The description adequately covers purpose and mechanism. However, it lacks any note on expected outcome or edge cases, which is a minor gap for a destructive 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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description itself does not add any extra meaning about the parameters, so the baseline score of 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 a specific action: 'Rollback a deployment by reverting an update set.' The verb 'rollback' and resource 'deployment' are explicit, and the mechanism 'reverting an update set' distinguishes it from generic rollback or other deployment tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rollback_changes or validate_deployment. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent without context to choose appropriately among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.