Rollback Stack Version

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it copies components/config/pricing, updates in-place if a draft exists, and requires a session_id from convoopen. These specifics complement the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by necessary usage details and parameter requirements. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 moderate complexity, complete schema, and presence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context for invocation: what it does, how it behaves with existing drafts, and what to do first. It does not describe return values, but with no output schema this is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already fully documents both parameters with format details and usage. The description only repeats the requirement ('REQUIRES: session_id... version') without adding new semantic information beyond 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 a specific action: 'Create a draft version by reverting to a previous version's config.' It names the resource (stack version), the verb (revert/create), and distinguishes itself from siblings like stackversions (list versions) and stackdiff (compare versions).

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 instructs to 'Use `stackversions` first to find available version numbers,' providing a clear prerequisite. It also explains the single-draft rule, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool beyond the prerequisite.

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