Rollback Stack Version

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

Annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) are complemented by detailed behavior: copies config components, updates in-place if draft exists. No contradiction, and adds meaningful context beyond structured fields.

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 concise with three clear sections: purpose, usage hint, and parameter requirements. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description completely covers behavior, prerequisites, edge cases, and dependencies. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description adds crucial details: version parameter suggests using stackversions, session_id parameter specifies exact format and warns against stripping the token suffix. This adds value beyond 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 the tool creates a draft by reverting to a previous version's config, specifying the verb 'reverting' and resource 'stack version'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stackversions by focusing on rollback action.

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 explicitly advises to use stackversions first to find available versions, and notes the single-draft rule for updates. While it doesn't list when not to use, the guidance is clear and practical.

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