pm_rollback

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

The description implies a destructive mutation (rolling back a deployment) but does not detail side effects, error states, or the availability of a previous image. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is minimally adequate.

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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it could benefit from specifying prerequisites (e.g., a previous deployment must exist) or behavior when no previous image is available.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema already covers all (nonexistent) parameters.

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') and the resource ('deployment to the previous Docker image'), providing a specific verb-noun combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pm_deploy, which performs forward deployment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pm_deploy), nor are there any prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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