Roll back workflow

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds real context beyond them: current live state is replaced, deploys may be refused, and for durable workflows the response warns about runs left in flight by the outgoing version. That is exactly the side-effect and failure-mode detail an agent needs before mutating production.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds prerequisites, refusal, warning, and the draft flag in descending importance. Every sentence carries information, though the final restoreDraft clause overlaps with the schema.

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?

Output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain them, and it still calls out the notable warning payload for durable workflows. Combined with the refusal condition and argument sourcing, nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly is missing.

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%, so workflowId, versionNumber and restoreDraft are already documented. The description restates the restoreDraft behavior ('also load that version back as the editable draft') without adding format or edge-case detail, so it neither compensates for a gap nor materially extends 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?

Names a specific verb and resource: making an earlier deployed version live again, replacing what is currently running. This clearly separates it from update_workflow (editing) and deploy_workflow (shipping the current draft).

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?

Gives the source for the required argument (list_workflow_versions), an explicit gating condition ('Only do this when the user asks'), and a hard refusal case (owner disabled deploys for the connection). An agent knows both when to call it and when it will fail.

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