ds_rollback_workflow_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action 'roll back' which implies a mutation, but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or whether the operation creates a new version or overwrites the current one. It also does not mention permissions or what happens to the workflow after rollback. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 very concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a simple argument list. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing. Every line serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential invocation details, including the source for the version parameter. However, it lacks information about the return value and the behavioral consequences of rollback, which are important for a mutation operation. For a low-complexity tool, it is partially complete but not fully.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not add much beyond the parameter titles. It does provide small clarifications: 'workflow_code' is 'Process-definition code' and 'version' is 'Target version number (from ds_list_workflow_versions)'. The version source is useful, but the other parameter descriptions are nearly tautological. Overall, it adds minimal value over the schema.

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: 'Roll back a workflow to a specific historical version.' It identifies a specific verb (roll back), a resource (workflow), and the target (a historical version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ds_update_workflow or ds_release_workflow based on the unique rollback 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?

The description provides implicit usage context by noting that the version comes from ds_list_workflow_versions, suggesting a prerequisite to list versions first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The guidance is limited to the version source, which is a helpful but partial cue.

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