rollback_rewrite_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a mutation (activating a revision) and that historical revisions are retained (non-destructive in that sense). However, it doesn't state permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or what the effect on the running runtime is. 'Historical revisions are retained' is a useful retention guarantee, but gaps remain.

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, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence earns its place, including the retention guarantee. No waste.

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 covers the core action and a key side effect (retention) but is thin on behavioral context: no permissions, no runtime impact, no rollback semantics. Adequate minimum but clearly missing pieces an agent would want before calling a mutation.

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%, so all three parameters (id, reload, revision) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents 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?

States a specific verb ('makes... the active revision') and resource (rewrite script package revision), which clearly distinguishes it from list/get siblings. It's not differentiated from rollback_module, but that operates on a different resource type (module vs script package), so the distinction is inferable. Clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The 'existing immutable revision' phrasing implies the revision must already exist, providing implicit guidance. However, there's no explicit statement of when to use this vs. upsert_rewrite_script or reload_rewrite_runtime, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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