rollback_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: revisions are immutable and history is retained, implying a non-destructive mutation. However, it says nothing about whether the rollback takes effect immediately, whether the running worker must be reloaded (a real concern given the 'reload' parameter), permission requirements, or impact on live traffic.

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, stating the action and the key consequence immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the core effect but omits operational essentials: prerequisites for a valid revision, whether a runtime reload is needed, and how success is reported. It is minimally adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'revision' refers to an immutable historical revision, but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema states; 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Switches') and resource ('a Module') plus the target state ('an immutable historical revision'). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like list_module_revisions or inspect_module, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to roll back versus using upsert_module, toggle_module, or reload_module_runtime, nor a prerequisite such as discovering valid revisions via list_module_revisions. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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