deployado_rollback

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral detail: it doesn't say whether rollback triggers a new deployment and restart, causes downtime, or what happens to the currently running release.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a destructive operation.

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, non-idempotent mutation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits how to identify the target release (version vs release_id), side effects on the running app, and the absent idempotency caveat that a repeat call may roll back to a different state.

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 app_id/version/release_id are documented in the schema, and the phrase 'previous release version' loosely maps to the version field. However, the description never explains the relationship or precedence between 'version' and 'release_id', leaving a real ambiguity for the caller.

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 names a specific verb ('Rollback') and resource ('an app') plus the target ('a previous release version'), which cleanly separates it from deploy/create_app/deploy_blueprint siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_releases/get_release, which are the lookup tools an agent must use to find the target.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer rollback over a fresh deploy, no prerequisite that the target release must exist, and no mention of constraints such as an in-flight deployment. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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