liara_rollback_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Rollback' implies a potentially destructive state change, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to current deployments, or any rate limits/constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two clear parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'rollback' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, potential side effects, or error conditions. The agent would be left guessing about important behavioral aspects of this state-changing operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both required parameters (appName and releaseID). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Rollback') and target ('to a previous release'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_restore_backup' or 'liara_restore_snapshot' which also involve reverting to previous states, leaving room for potential confusion about when to use this specific rollback tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'liara_restore_backup' or 'liara_restore_snapshot', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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