rollback_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that it defaults to the previous revision and uses ReplicaSet history, but omits details about permissions, whether it triggers a rollout, or error behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value: the purpose, default behavior, and mechanism are all covered in three sentences.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how to find valid revisions, what happens if the revision is invalid, or operational details of the rollback.

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 only clarifies that 'revision' is optional and defaults to the previous revision; name, namespace, and cluster_alias remain undocumented beyond schema defaults.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Roll back a Deployment to a previous revision.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rollout_restart and scale_deployment by specifying the rollback action.

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 implies usage for rolling back deployments and notes the default behavior when revision is unspecified, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_deployment_revision_history or explain when to use this tool instead of others.

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