trigger_rollback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says compensation starts immediately. It does not state side effects on the saga, whether the operation is reversible/idempotent, whether prerequisites like a failed state exist, or whether it returns synchronously.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key trigger condition and action are front-loaded. Nothing needs to be cut.

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 mutating control operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it lacks state-transition behavior, return/acknowledgement semantics, and any guidance on the rollback_saga sibling. It is minimally usable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain that saga_id identifies the failed saga to compensate; it never mentions the parameter. The parameter name and title are mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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—'start compensation'—and a trigger condition ('after a client-detected failure'), so an agent knows the tool initiates a rollback. It is not a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling rollback_saga, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 'after a client-detected failure' gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when rollback_saga, retry_saga_step, or commit_saga would be preferable.

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