rollback_issue

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that it restores the previous value, which implies overwriting the current state. However, it does not mention potential irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether the operation can be undone, so it adds only partial context beyond the annotations.

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, with a single functional sentence followed by a short Args list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No unnecessary text, though the Args list duplicates schema property names without adding substantial new meaning.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which likely covers return values. The description explains the main action and parameter origins, but lacks information about when to use it versus bulk_rollback, any side effects beyond 'restoring,' or required permissions. For a destructive operation, missing these details leaves some context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It provides a brief but clear explanation for each: issue_id (ID or URL), activity_id (from get_issue_history), and instance (optional). This compensates reasonably well for the absent schema descriptions, though it could elaborate on formats 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 clearly states the operation: 'Rollback a specific change by restoring the previous value.' It identifies the resource (an issue change) and the action (rollback), which is specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'bulk_rollback,' but the word 'specific' implies a single-change scope, which slightly aids differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that activity_id comes from get_issue_history, which hints at a prerequisite, but does not state conditions for use or exclusions (e.g., use bulk_rollback for multiple changes). The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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