rollback_design_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a new version is created (not destructive), that history is preserved, and that notes record the rollback origin. It also details the 3D stage behavior, including decimation of oversized meshes and the fallback for hosts without MCP Apps panels. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, parameter details, and return value. The 3D stage paragraph is additional but relevant context. It's slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. The front-loading of the core purpose is good.

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 (rollback with history preservation, 3D stage side effect), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how parameters work, what it returns, and the side effect. No output schema exists, so the return description is helpful. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but it's reasonably complete.

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 `design_id` as 'The design to rollback' and `to_version_id` as 'The version number (integer) or design_id:N ref to restore.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types (string), clarifying the format and semantics. However, it doesn't elaborate on edge cases or validation, so a 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Rollback a design to a previous version.' It specifies the action (rollback), the resource (design), and the key behavior (creates a new version preserving history). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `save_design_version` and `list_design_versions` by explaining the rollback semantics.

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 explains when to use this tool: to rollback a design to a previous version while preserving history. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear. The mention of creating a new version rather than overwriting implies a safe operation, which helps the agent decide.

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