trigger_rollback

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it does not immediately execute, returns a pending_approval object with a rollback_id, and requires human approval before deployment. This adds significant value not covered by annotations.

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 concise, starting with the main purpose, followed by the important caveat and prerequisite, and ending with required fields. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (pending_approval object with rollback_id) and the approval workflow. It also covers prerequisites and the non-execution behavior, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100%, and the description only repeats the parameter names and example format ('service name and target_version (e.g., "v2.4.0")') without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifically states 'Submits a rollback request for a service to a target version,' using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on rollback and clarifying that it is a request rather than an immediate action.

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?

Provides clear context by stating 'Call analyze_root_cause first to confirm the target version is safe to roll back to' as a prerequisite. It also sets expectations that the tool does not immediately execute, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for immediate rollback or other scenarios.

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