rollback_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose real behavioral traits: the operation appends rather than rewrites history, it is gated behind Kiln Pro, and it opens an inline 3D stage with automatic decimation for oversized meshes. It still omits failure modes, permission details, and whether the target version must belong to the given feature.

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 purpose sentence is properly front-loaded, but roughly half the text is unrelated marketing copy ('Everything in Free, plus calibration...', 'Requires Kiln Pro', upgrade URL) and a duplicated stage paragraph. That bulk dilutes the operative instruction and costs tokens without improving invocation accuracy.

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 two undocumented required parameters, the description is only partially complete: it explains the append semantics and the viewer side effect, but leaves identifier semantics, error conditions, and tier/permission failure behavior to inference.

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 only 33%: 'notes' is briefly documented while feature_id and feature_version_id carry no schema text at all. The description supplies no compensating meaning for any of the three parameters, so an agent gets no help on what a version id must reference.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and effect ('append a new version whose content matches an earlier version'), which is clearer than the bare name 'rollback' and conveys the append-based, non-destructive rollback semantics. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as rollback_design_version, rollback_decoration, rollback_firmware or rollback_printer_firmware, so an agent must infer the scope from the required feature_id/feature_version_id arguments.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over rollback_design_version or the design-version restore path, and no prerequisites beyond a paywall notice. The description tells the agent what happens but not when to reach for it.

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