rollback_manifestwork

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the approval workflow and the need for an approval_token, which is not fully captured by the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and it supplements them with prerequisite details.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a brief Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, and parameter sources. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is largely complete. However, it could explicitly mention that the operation is irreversible or that the token is single-use, though this is partially implied by 'Delete' and the destructiveHint annotation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: rollback_proposal_id is 'id returned by propose_rollback' and approval_token is 'a rollback token from ocm-mcp approve <rollback-id>'. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare names/types.

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: 'Delete a ManifestWork after a rollback proposal has been approved.' It uses a specific verb (Delete), identifies the resource (ManifestWork), and includes a condition (after approval), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_rollback and apply_manifestwork.

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 clear when-to-use context by specifying 'after a rollback proposal has been approved' and explains how to obtain the required arguments (rollback_proposal_id from propose_rollback, approval_token from ocm-mcp approve). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow is clear.

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