rollback_design_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 a new version is created, full history is preserved, and rollback origin is recorded in notes. It does not detail permissions or side effects, but it is largely transparent 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 well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, but could be slightly more concise. It effectively communicates the tool's behavior without unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavioral nuances, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not detail return fields, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It adds valuable semantic detail for 'to_version_id' (version number or design_id:N ref) and clarifies that 'design_id' is the design to rollback. This goes beyond basic type info.

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 it rolls back a design to a previous version by creating a new version, preserving history. It distinguishes from other versioning tools (e.g., save_design_version, get_design_version) by explaining the unique behavior of creating a new version as a rollback.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool (to revert to a previous version) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like 'diff_design_versions' or 'get_design_version'. However, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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