athena_policy_rollback

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 does disclose that the rollback is implemented as a new versioned transaction and that history is preserved, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not explain the optimistic concurrency mechanism implied by 'expected_version', side effects, or reversibility. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a critical behavioral caveat without extraneous detail.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not mention expected_version's role, what the tool returns, or error behavior. For a mutation tool with this complexity, the description leaves critical context unaddressed, resulting in a 2.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (txid, actor, scope, expected_version). The term 'transaction' hints that txid refers to the transaction to roll back, but expected_version, actor, and scope are left entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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'), the object ('one organization-policy transaction'), and the key behavior ('as a new versioned transaction; history is preserved'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_policy_update (which updates policy) and athena_topology_rollback (which rolls back topology).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to roll back an organization-policy transaction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like athena_policy_update, so it lacks explicit exclusions. Clear context but no exclusions earns a 4.

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