delimit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a rollback operation, implying it's a destructive/mutative action that changes the application state, but doesn't specify critical details like whether it requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to current data, or potential side effects. The '(Pro)' tag suggests licensing restrictions but isn't explained.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a parameter list. It's efficient with minimal fluff, though the '(Pro)' tag is unexplained and could be considered extraneous. The structure is clear but could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 complexity (a rollback operation with potential data implications), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses critical behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions). The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage it to explain return values or outcomes.

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 lists the three parameters (app, env, to_sha) and briefly explains their purposes ('Application name', 'Target environment', 'SHA to rollback to'), which adds basic semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., env values like 'prod' or 'staging'), constraints, or what happens if to_sha is null, leaving gaps.

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 action ('Rollback to previous SHA') and the target ('Application'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delimit_deploy_status' or 'delimit_deploy_plan' by focusing on reverting to a previous state. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'SHA' refers to (e.g., a Git commit), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a previous deployment), exclusions (e.g., not for initial deployments), or related tools like 'delimit_deploy_status' for checking current state. The '(Pro)' tag hints at licensing but doesn't clarify usage context.

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