sumo_qa_rollback_external_skill

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: user confirmation is mandatory, a shared skill is refused, and a host that cannot perform MCP elicitation is refused. It stops short of describing the resulting state or partial-failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and precondition, then per-parameter notes in a compact two-paragraph form. Every sentence carries information, though the backtick fragments read like schema notes rather than prose flow.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, it covers the key behavioral questions: confirmation requirement, elicitation fallback refusal, and the shared-skill refusal. Two parameters (`scope`, `confirmed`) and the post-rollback state remain undocumented, so it is not fully complete.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains `agent` (the single recorded agent; shared skills refused) and `elevated_trust` (unlisted-source restoration), and implies the confirmation precondition, but leaves `scope`, `skill`, and the `confirmed` flag itself unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (restore/rollback) and resource (an external skill sumo-qa installed), and covers both branches of behavior: restoring the previous approved version or removing a first install. An agent can distinguish it from sumo_qa_install_external_skill without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly requires user confirmation before acting and states the condition for elevated_trust (only when the user grants it for an unlisted source). It doesn't name a sibling alternative or spell out when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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