aism_migration_rollback

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds real value: it names precisely what is destroyed, what is restored, that the ID map is forgotten, and what survives. It stops short of explaining failure/timeout behavior (max_seconds) or what happens if a rollback is interrupted.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope; the retention rule and permission requirement follow in priority order with no filler.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision inputs: what gets deleted, what gets restored, what is preserved, and the required capability. The only gap, timeout semantics for max_seconds, is minor given 75% schema coverage.

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 75%, with source, target, and source_uuid documented in-schema; the description adds no parameter-level detail and never mentions max_seconds, which has no description at all. With the schema doing most of the work, baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Undo a migration on the target') and enumerates the exact operations performed: deleting posts/media/terms/comments, restoring settings, forgetting the ID map. It is clearly the inverse of aism_migration_run, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 precondition ('Requires migration:delete on the target') and the retention rule ('Objects matched to pre-existing target content are kept') give useful context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. checking aism_migration_status first, or partial rollback limits).

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