rollback_app

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is preserved (runtime-written data, env vars by default), the extra `apps:envs` scope needed for restore, and a full enumeration of domain-specific error codes. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a risky mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then constraints, then errors. Every sentence carries information; the error-code list is dense but useful rather than filler. Slightly long but no wasted prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description still fully equips the agent: effects, preserved state, scope requirements, the preview prerequisite, and the possible failure modes. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for restore_environment (it triggers the extra scope and the preview_rollback prerequisite) and implies release_id comes from a known release set. It goes beyond the schema for the non-obvious parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rolls the application back to a previous release') plus the concrete effects (code reverts, app restarts). An agent can distinguish this from deploy_app, restart_app, and preview_rollback without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to run `preview_rollback` first when restore_environment is set, which is a concrete when-to-use-a-different-tool rule. It doesn't spell out when to choose rollback over deploy_app/restart_app in general, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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