coolify_rollback_application

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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark it as destructive), the description discloses additional behavioral traits: it is a queued operation, subject to operation mode, allowlist, and production guard policies, and has an audit trail ('Audit: coolify.application.rollback'). This adds meaningful context about side effects and controls.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It includes essential policy and audit information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity and the full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose, policy constraints, and audit behavior. It does not mention the return value or outcome explicitly, but 'queue' implies an asynchronous deployment action. Considering the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and constraints.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (e.g., image, application_uuid, environment_name). The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Queue a rollback deployment for an application to a previous image tag/commit.' The verb 'queue' and the resource 'rollback deployment for an application' are specific, and the target ('previous image tag/commit') adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy, restart, or cancel, which have different purposes.

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 mentions that it is a 'Deploy-only operation subject to operation mode, allowlist, and production guard policies,' which gives contextual constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as coolify_deploy or coolify_cancel_deployment. The usage guidance is implied through the phrase 'Deploy-only' but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives.

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