k8s_rollout_undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the two modes of rollback but omits prerequisites, side effects (e.g., pod recreation, new revision creation), permissions, and whether the operation is synchronous. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. Sibling tools are distinguished by purpose but not by usage scenarios. The description is incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description should explain all parameters, but it only discusses to_revision. The other four required parameters (name, context, namespace, resource_type) are not elaborated, relying on their self-explanatory names, which is insufficient for a complete agent understanding.

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 'Roll back' and specifies the resource types (deployment, daemonset, statefulset) with a specific purpose of reverting to a previous revision. This distinguishes it from sibling rollout tools like status, history, restart, pause, resume.

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 concrete guidance on using the to_revision parameter: omit for immediate previous revision or specify a revision number from rollout_history. This helps the agent choose the correct parameter usage, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or list alternatives.

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