generate_rollback

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool produces rollback plans but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. No mention of output format despite having an output schema. Behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling are absent.

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 two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with key information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the two modes adequately. It does not explain output schema or limitations, but an output schema exists, reducing the burden. Slight gaps on conditional behavior (e.g., what happens if both proposal_id and sql are provided) prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: it explains that proposal_id and sql are mutually exclusive, and that connection is optional for schema-aware rollbacks. This significantly aids parameter understanding beyond the raw 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 produces undo SQL for DB proposals or a restore plan for config, distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_change or simulate_impact. It specifies two distinct usage modes (by proposal_id or by sql+connection), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for generating rollbacks but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or comparisons to siblings like simulate_impact or propose_migration_or_edit. The word 'either' helps but is insufficient.

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