forge_version_rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Roll back' and 'Lists available versions', which are insufficient. The tool likely performs a destructive action (modifying state), but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. The listing behavior is not reflected in the input schema.

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 short with two sentences and no unnecessary words. However, the second sentence about listing versions may be misleading if the tool does not actually perform a list operation, slightly detracting from conciseness.

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 lacks an output schema and the description does not hint at return values. Additionally, given the potential destructiveness of rollback, the description should mention error scenarios, confirmation steps, or permissions. The mention of listing versions is unsupported by the parameters, leaving the user uncertain about the tool's complete behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool's description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. For example, it doesn't explain the relationship between entity_type and entity_id, or how version_number is validated.

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 main function: rolling back an entity to a previous version. It uses specific verbs and resource, and the tool name 'forge_version_rollback' is distinct from sibling tools like forge_version_set_list and forge_version_set_promote. However, the mention of 'Lists available versions for selection' is ambiguous because the input schema requires a version_number, implying the user already knows the target version.

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 the tool is used when an entity needs to be reverted to an earlier version, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like forge_version_set_promote or forge_entity_update. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites mentioned.

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