propose_rollback

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: 'Applies nothing' clarifies it is non-destructive, 'Creates a distinct rollback proposal bound to the exact ManifestWork name and UID' details the side effect, and the token restriction is disclosed. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) rather than contradicting them.

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 compact and starts with the core purpose. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant with the explanation already in the prose, but it remains clear and focused, earning a high conciseness score.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter), the description sufficiently covers prerequisites (already-applied ManifestWork), the approval flow, and security considerations. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Minor gaps: no mention of error cases or what happens after approval, but not critical for a proposal tool.

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?

While schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly defines the parameter: 'proposal_id: id of an already-applied ManifestWork proposal.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration, fully compensating for the missing schema description.

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: 'Propose rolling back an applied ManifestWork' with the clarification 'Applies nothing; needs its own approval.' This distinguishes it from direct rollback or apply tools (e.g., rollback_manifestwork, apply_manifestwork) by emphasizing it is a proposal, not the actual mutation.

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?

Provides contextual guidance: 'needs its own approval' and explains that 'an old apply token can never delete a workload'—implying this is the safe way to initiate a rollback that requires human authorization. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context (rollback_manifestwork) makes the comparison implicit.

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