config_rollback

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read, non-destructive action, and the description adds the useful 'atomically' detail, indicating the activation is all-or-nothing. It also adds the state requirements 'verified' and 'retained.' Still, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the previously active config remains available or whether the rollback can be reversed, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. The key qualifier 'atomically' is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning within the sentence's scope.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, atomicity, and a prerequisite. However, it does not explain how to obtain a valid releaseId, what the outcome of activation looks like, or how this tool relates to config_publish and config_sync. An agent could likely call it correctly, but important surrounding context is missing.

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 bears the burden of explaining releaseId. The phrase 'activate ... release' ties the parameter to the release being activated, and 'already verified retained' narrows the acceptable release state. That adds useful meaning, but the description never explicitly names releaseId or explains how to obtain a valid value beyond the schema's hex pattern.

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 names a specific action ('activate') and a specific resource ('Personal Agent Config release'), and adds meaningful qualifiers ('atomically', 'already verified retained') that clarify what kind of activation this is. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling config tools, but the action and resource are clear enough that an agent can tell what the tool does.

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 phrase 'already verified retained' implies a precondition for using this tool: only verified, retained releases should be activated through it. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over config_publish, config_sync, or other config-related siblings, nor does it state any when-not-to-use conditions. Usage guidance is mostly left to inference.

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