presentation_rollback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the operation is non-destructive and creates a new commit, which is crucial behavioral information that prevents misinterpretation. However, it lacks details on required permissions, side effects on deployments, or handling of invalid version SHAs, which would elevate it further.

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 that front-loads the main action and efficiently adds the key behavioral detail (non-destructive new commit). There is no redundant information or unnecessary padding.

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 rollback tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the operation's essence and safety profile. It explains the mechanism (creating a new commit) and the non-destructive nature, which is the core context needed. It could mention prerequisites like a valid commit SHA, but that is not critical given the 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 fully describes both required parameters (id and version), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, mentioning only 'contenido' without elaborating on parameter formats or relationships. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: reverting a presentation to a previous version by creating a new commit, which also distinguishes it from destructive rollbacks and from direct updates like presentation_update. The verb 'Vuelve' and the mechanism 'creando un nuevo commit' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for non-destructive rollback but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., presentation_update, presentation_list_versions) or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It offers context (non-destructive) but no exclusionary or alternative references, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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