ateam_github_rollback

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses additive behavior, no history destruction, new commit creation, and the ability to roll back the rollback.

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?

Efficiently structured with a one-line purpose followed by bullet points on behavior and workflow. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Covers behavior, workflow, and parameter guidance well. Lacks description of return value (e.g., commit ID or status), but overall complete given no output schema.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining 'target' as a tag or SHA and referencing list_versions, but 'solution_id' remains basic.

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 'Roll prod (main branch) back to a previous state' with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the additive, history-preserving nature.

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?

Provides a clear workflow (list_versions → rollback → build_and_run) and explains when to use (revert to safe tags). Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but context is sufficient.

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