Roll back deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does warn that the operation is simulated and that it mutates server-side state, which is important. It stops short of explaining what the mutation does to existing state, whether it is reversible, or what side effects the agent should expect.

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 compact: two clauses cover the action, the parameter reference, the simulated nature, and the mutation warning. There is no redundancy or padding.

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 single-parameter operation with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main gaps are lack of usage guidance and limited behavioral detail beyond 'mutates server-side state.'

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 for parameter meaning, but it only repeats 'by id' and adds no details about the ID format, where to obtain it, or any constraints. The property name 'deployment_id' already implies the basic meaning, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Roll back'), resource ('deployment'), and selection criterion ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployments or open_incident without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when a deployment should be reverted to a previous state. However, it does not state when not to use it, what preconditions exist (such as the deployment being rollback-able), or that list_deployments may be needed to obtain the ID.

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