mutation_rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a significant side effect ('Creates a pre-rollback backup') and a safe preview mode (dryRun). However, it does not mention reversibility, error behavior, or what happens to the backup, leaving gaps in full transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides a key behavioral detail (backup + dryRun). No fluff, front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, the parameter semantics, and a safety feature. It does not explain the return value or post-rollback behavior, but for a quick action tool this is acceptable and nearly complete.

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 describes mutationId as 'Timestamp of the mutation to rollback' but does not describe dryRun beyond type/default. The description adds meaning to dryRun ('Set dryRun=true to preview without applying') and reinforces mutationId semantics. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Rollback') and resource ('a mutation') with the identifier type ('timestamp ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like mutation_history, which lists mutations but does not roll them back.

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?

It gives a usage tip (dryRun=true for preview) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose and unique action among siblings.

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