rollback_saga

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals that steps are compensated in reverse order, but it does not state side effects, idempotency, failure handling, whether compensation is asynchronous, or what happens when a step cannot be compensated.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second clause adds a useful distinction. It is concise, though somewhat under-specified for the information it needs to convey.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits failure behavior, return semantics, and any practical guidance about how compensation relates to rollback, which is essential for a saga-management tool with no annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention saga_id at all. The agent must rely entirely on the schema's minimal field title and minLength, with no guidance on where to obtain the saga_id or what format is expected.

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 action ('Compensate saga steps') with a clear scope ('in reverse order'), which goes beyond a mere restatement of the name. It also nudges differentiation from a rollback path, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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 'rollback remains available as the safety path' hints at an alternative, but it does not specify when to use rollback_saga versus trigger_rollback or other saga tools. There is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion guiding tool selection.

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