rollback_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'restoring the previous value,' implying a mutation, but omits details on reversibility, permissions, conflicts, or the output. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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: two sentences plus a parameter list. Every element contributes, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant information.

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 sensitive nature of a rollback operation and the absence of annotations, the description is too lean. It does not explain what is restored, how errors are handled, or what the output contains (despite an output schema being available).

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting issue_id can be a URL, activity_id comes from get_issue_history, and instance is optional. However, it lacks constraints, examples, or formats for the parameters, partially compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 'Rollback a specific change by restoring the previous value,' indicating a targeted undo operation. It distinguishes from update_issue (which sets new values) and delete_issue (which removes the issue), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like bulk_rollback.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., calling get_issue_history first) or circumstances where rollback is inappropriate, such as bulk operations.

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