paperclip_rollback_agent_config

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but description adds context: board-only requirement, returns agent object, and lists error handling codes. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Front-loaded the board-only warning. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in error handling.

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 return value, authentication, permissions, and error cases. No output schema, but description explains what is returned. Missing mention of whether rollback is reversible, but annotations cover destructive nature.

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 covers 100% of parameters (agentId, revisionId) with descriptions. Description repeats parameter info but adds example values, which is helpful but not essential beyond 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 clearly states 'Roll back an agent's config to a specific previous revision' with a specific verb ('roll back') and resource ('agent config'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'use paperclip_update_agent instead' for targeted edits.

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 explicit when-to-use (reverting bad config that broke heartbeat) and when-not-to-use (targeted edits), including alternative tool. Also indicates board-only access and required API key permissions.

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