rollback_deployment

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only and is not flagged as destructive. The description adds the key fact that the operation affects the live URL, which is useful production context, but it does not discuss side effects, permissions, or what happens to the currently active deployment.

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 front-loaded sentence: the action comes first and the cross-reference to list_deployments is kept in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repeated schema information.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the outcome and how to obtain a valid version value, and the annotations cover the basic safety profile. However, the required appId is left undocumented and the description does not state anything about the response or immediate post-rollback behavior, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate. It does clarify that `version` refers to a previous deployment version and can be found via list_deployments, but it says nothing about the required `appId` parameter or the optional `organizationId`, leaving a significant gap for an agent constructing the call.

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 the exact action ('point the live URL back') and target ('a previous deployment version'), clearly distinguishing this rollback tool from siblings like deploy_frontend and list_deployments. The behavior is specific and unambiguous.

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 makes clear that this tool is for reverting to an existing deployment version and explicitly points to list_deployments as the source for valid versions. It does not list formal exclusions, but the rollback-vs-new-deploy distinction is strongly implied.

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