portainer_service_rollback

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

The description names the core action and necessary precondition, but without annotations it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, or whether the rollback is asynchronous (though the wait follow-up implies it). This is adequate but not rich.

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 brief and direct, with the main action stated first, a concise precondition, and a helpful follow-up hint. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple rollback operation, it covers the essential context: what it does, when it applies, and next step. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the return value is acceptable. Minor omissions like possible errors are not critical here.

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?

Although the schema has no formal descriptions, the inline Args text adds useful meaning: service_id can be a name or ID, and endpoint_id defaults to a target if omitted. This goes beyond the raw schema types.

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 purpose: 'Roll a Swarm service back to its previous spec', with an explicit docker command reference and the resource type (Swarm service). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like service_update and service_inspect.

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 a clear precondition ('Works only while Swarm still holds a PreviousSpec, i.e. after at least one update') and directs the user to follow up with portainer_service_wait, which is actionable guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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