rollback_apply

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: the reversal call re-dispatches through auth, rate-limiting, and validation; it appends a new action_log entry; and requires confirm=true. This gives a complete picture of side effects and safeguards.

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 concise sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the primary action, the second explains the re-dispatch mechanism, the third mentions the result and requirement. No wasted words.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, how it works (re-dispatch), what it requires (confirm), and what it produces (appended entry). It covers all necessary aspects for a rollback execution tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that 'index' is the action_log entry to reverse, 'confirm' must be true for execution, and 'state_file' is the path to STATE.json, reinforcing and clarifying the schema.

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 it executes the rollback plan for a specific action_log index. It specifies the re-dispatch mechanism, the new entry creation, and the confirm requirement, distinguishing it from related tools like rollback_plan_get.

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 description notes that confirm=true is required as a safety measure and that the call re-enters auth and validation, implying careful use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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