rollback_migration

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 destructive nature (deletes records), the identification via correlation prefix, and the two-phase commit. It could mention permissions or irreversibility, but the two-phase pattern adds valuable context.

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 concise sentences: first defines the tool's function, second gives an example prefix, third explains the two-phase process. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a destructive tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two-phase pattern and criteria for deletion. It could mention expected output (e.g., count for confirm=false), but not essential.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the correlation_prefix parameter with examples ('jira:', 'salesforce:'), the confirm parameter (false for count, true for delete), and implies sn_table refers to target records. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool deletes target records created by a migration, identified by a correlation_id prefix like 'jira:' or 'salesforce:'. This specific functionality distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cleanup_migration or check_migration_state.

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 explains the two-phase usage pattern (first confirm=false to see count, then confirm=true to delete). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, which would enhance guidance.

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