rollback_change

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It only implies a destructive action (rollback) without specifying side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The phrase 'journaled' is vague and not explained.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure (e.g., no sections or bullet points). It could be expanded slightly to include key details without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema and sibling tools, the description fails to provide essential context, such as how to obtain a change_id from a previous operation or what the expected outcome is. It leaves significant gaps for a 1-parameter tool.

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 sole parameter 'change_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is not explained in the tool description. The agent has no information on what constitutes a valid change_id, where to find it, or its format.

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 ('Rollback') and the target resource ('a journaled write or create performed through this MCP'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'apply_odoo_mutation' or 'odoo_change_history' by specifying the rollback function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. For instance, it does not mention that a previous journaled operation is required or how to obtain a change_id, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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