propose_rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — does not execute,' which is a critical safety trait. However, it does not mention what the generated plan contains, whether any state changes occur, or any permission requirements.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Generate a rollback plan for human review' states the core purpose immediately, followed by the key safety qualifier. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 moderate complexity of 3 required parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal to enable correct invocation. It explains the main purpose and safety, but the lack of parameter semantics and any contextual guidance about when to generate a rollback plan leaves significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 3 required parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what model_name, current_version, or reason should contain or how they are used. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a rollback plan for human review.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like execute_rollback by adding 'Read-only — does not execute,' making the purpose 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 provides clear context: it is for generating a plan for human review, not for executing it. The 'does not execute' phrase implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool when an actual rollback is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give more detailed when-to-use guidance.

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