Put back the previous version

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the deployment is rebuilt from source, takes as long as a normal deploy, and returns a taskId that must be polled via deployment_status. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and gives the agent the operational context needed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the important async/duration caveat. No wasted text.

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?

Complete for a destructive mutation with no output schema: it explains what the tool does, how long it takes, and how to handle the returned taskId. Nothing critical is omitted for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the deploymentId parameter is already documented. The description adds useful meaning by specifying that the ID refers to a deployment from deployment_history.

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?

Clearly states the rollback operation and target version, and references deployment_history and deployment_status. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling `redeploy`, so sibling differentiation is good but not complete.

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?

Explains the main usage context: restoring the previous live version or a specific earlier deployment, with the ID sourced from deployment_history. It also explains how to track the async result, though it does not state when to prefer rollback over redeploy or deploy.

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