wafle_system_release_rollback

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds value by explicitly flagging 'DESTRUCTIVE' and instructing to 'confirm with the user.' This procedural safety step goes beyond just the annotation and gives contextual guidance on how to handle this destructive action.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a clear warning. Every word earns its place; there is zero fluff or repetition.

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?

This simple one-parameter destructive tool lacks an output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It covers the action and the destructive nature, but does not explain what happens to the current version, whether the rollback is reversible, or what the tool returns upon success. The given information is adequate but leaves notable 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only repeats the word 'component' from the schema, giving no details on what a component is, whether it's an ID or name, or how to identify the correct component. The minimum length constraint is not explained and there are no enums or examples.

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 ('roll back') and clearly identifies the resource ('a component') and target state ('previous deployed version'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_system_release_deploy (which deploys forward) and wafle_system_versions_list (which lists versions).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to roll back, prerequisites, or that wafle_system_release_deploy could be used for deploying instead. The only usage hint is the requirement to confirm with the user, which is more of a procedural warning than a usage guideline.

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