cdp_set_current_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a mutation ('Roll back', 'PUT as current') and returns a value ('Returns the new version number'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits that would be important for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose, equivalent operation, and parameter guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary elaboration while covering essential points.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description does a good job explaining purpose, usage, and some parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden. However, for a mutation tool, more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, idempotency) would improve completeness.

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 must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'resource_path' (must include ID, e.g., 'workflows/456') and 'path_style' (set to 'none' for specific resources), adding crucial context beyond the bare schema. It does not cover 'tenant_id' or 'version' semantics, but the coverage of two key parameters is substantial given the low schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Roll back', 'Set') and resource scope ('any CDP resource', 'any versioned resource'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on version rollback rather than creation, deletion, or other operations listed in the sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Roll back any CDP resource to a specific version') and includes an example for resource_path formatting. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the unique purpose implies differentiation.

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