rollback_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by specifying what is destroyed (current content is replaced) and the blast radius (all viewers immediately see the rolled-back version). It does not clarify whether the rollback is itself reversible, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short blocks: verb+resource, a front-loaded destructive warning, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, the description covers purpose, destructive impact, and the required prior step; annotations carry the safety flag, the schema documents both params, and an output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the pointer to get_dashboard_versions. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (rollback) and resource (QuickSight dashboard) with a clear scope ('to a previous version'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like publish_dashboard or get_dashboard_versions without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the prerequisite step: 'Use get_dashboard_versions first to find the version number you want to restore.' This routes the agent correctly, though it doesn't state when NOT to roll back (e.g., active editing sessions).

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