Rollback application

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds concrete consequences: it changes the live current symlink and marks the replaced release as bad. This goes beyond the raw annotation and tells the agent what will actually be modified.

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 and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, followed by the side effects. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

While the core behavior is clear and an output schema exists, the tool is incomplete for safe invocation: the required confirmation parameter is undocumented, and there is no guidance on preconditions or error states. An agent would have to guess how to satisfy the confirmation requirement.

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%, and the description does not explain either required parameter. 'name' is only implied to be the application name, and 'confirmation' is completely unexplained – the agent cannot know what value should be supplied.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Roll a registered application back') and a precise target ('previous good Deployer release'), then names the concrete effects (changing the live symlink and marking the replaced release as bad). This clearly distinguishes it from deploy_app or list_releases.

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 implies rollback is used after a bad deployment to restore the previous good release, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus deploying or inspecting releases, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a prior release or confirmation handling.

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