rollback_credential

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

Annotations already mark this as a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the current value is preserved in history, which explains why the operation is non-destructive and reassures the agent it is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (verb, target fields, source version, non-destructive note) 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core concept but leaves gaps: it never defines ref, doesn't say how to obtain a valid version (presumably credential_history), and gives no error or failure context.

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 0% and both parameters (ref, version) are bare. The description only weakly implies the meaning of version ('an earlier version') and says nothing about ref, so it fails to compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Restore') plus resource ('credential's username+secrets') and a scoping detail ('to an earlier version'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling restore_credential, which an agent could easily confuse with rollback.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'to an earlier version' – the agent can infer this is for reverting history, but no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative (e.g. restore_credential vs update_credential vs purge_credential) is given.

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