migration_rollback_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is not a delete (entries are append-only), archives master rows, returns to mapped state, and voids approval. However, it omits details like reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects on related data. The ambiguous requirement about commit_migration further detracts.

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 concise, but the final sentence about commit_migration is unclear and the use of domain jargon like 'A02 reversing entries' without explanation reduces clarity. The structure is front-loaded but not perfectly organized.

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 complexity of a rollback operation with five parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, prerequisites, and details about the rollback process. The agent would need additional context to call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the five parameters (workspaceId, planId, stepId, idempotencyKey, confirmed) or their meanings. An agent has no guidance on what values to supply, making this a significant gap.

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 tool reverses a committed step, using specific mechanisms (A02 reversing entries, archiving master rows) and explicitly disambiguates from a delete operation. It also specifies the outcome: returning to mapped state and voiding approval. This makes 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 does not clearly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like migration_abandon_plan or migration_commit_step. It mentions 'After any commit this verb requires commit_migration,' which is ambiguous and fails to give actionable guidance. There is no explicit statement of when this is the appropriate tool or what conditions must be met.

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