github_rollback_deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (creating a new deployment and marking the current one inactive), which is more than just stating 'rollback'. However, it does not explain side effects like whether the operation triggers workflows, requires special permissions, or is irreversible, and it leaves ambiguous whether marking inactive only happens when currentDeploymentId is supplied.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential action without fluff. It earns its place completely, with no redundant information.

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?

Despite full schema parameter descriptions and clear purpose, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool without annotations. It does not clarify the role of the optional currentDeploymentId (whether marking inactive is conditional), how to obtain that ID, what the API returns, or whether the action is asynchronous. More context is needed to safely invoke the tool effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'specific ref' and 'current deployment' which map to ref and currentDeploymentId. It does not enrich the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: rolling back a deployment by creating a new deployment to a specific ref and marking the current one inactive. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_deployments which only lists deployments.

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 implies the tool is used for rolling back deployments, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining the current deployment ID via github_get_deployments. No exclusions or 'when not to use' are stated.

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