rollback

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description reveals that the rollback swaps the container image without rebuilding, uses a blue-green strategy for zero downtime, and does not affect the database. These details help the agent understand operational impact and recovery guarantees.

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 three sentences: purpose, mechanism, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 a simple input schema (one well-documented parameter), no output schema, and the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, behavioral traits, usage conditions, and a critical caveat (no database rollback). No gaps remain.

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 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter (project_id), the schema already explains the parameter well. The description adds no further semantics beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource pair, 'Rollback a project to its previous deployment.' This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like 'deploy' (which creates a new deployment) and 'delete-project' (which removes the project entirely).

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Use this when a deployment introduces bugs or breaks the app.' It also clarifies a key limitation: 'The database is NOT rolled back,' helping agents avoid misuse. While it does not name alternative tools, the purpose and context make the decision clear.

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