Roll back Micro code

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context by specifying that data entities such as users, records, products, purchases, and files are untouched. This meaningfully clarifies what the destructive action affects: the deployed code, not the application data.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the action ('Activate a previous deployment') and then states the important data-safety boundary. Every word earns its place, and no irrelevant details are included.

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?

The tool is destructive yet safe to app data, and the description conveys that critical distinction. With annotations, an output schema, and the deployment UUID format available in the schema, the main missing piece is guidance for finding or enumerating previous deployments via a sibling like micro_deployments, but 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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. It never explains that 'deployment' is the UUID of the previous deployment to activate, nor does it clarify the optional 'path' parameter. The description's 'previous deployment' phrasing gives a slight hint about the deployment parameter, but it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Activate a previous deployment.' It also clarifies the scope by listing what it does NOT change ('app users, records, products, purchases, or files'), which distinguishes it from data-mutating sibling tools like micro_backup_restore or micro_record_delete.

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 phrase 'Activate a previous deployment' implies this tool is for rolling back to an earlier code state, so the core use case is clear. However, the description does not mention when not to use it, name alternatives such as micro_deploy or micro_backup_restore, or explain how to choose between them.

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