Argocd Rollback Application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description repeats 'destructive' rather than adding to it. It does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the pre-read of the app that yields an actionable error, and the warning that the old revision is re-applied so Git must be fixed afterward.

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?

Three short sentences plus a one-word hazard flag. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries unique information (action, precondition, post-action caveat) with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the important operational nuances (auto-sync refusal, needing to fix Git), leaving only minor gaps like interaction between dry_run and the pre-read behavior.

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 100%, so name, history_id, wait, prune, dry_run, project, app_namespace, and timeout_seconds are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Roll back to a prior deployment history entry.' The action is inherently distinguishable from read siblings like argocd_get_application_history and from argocd_sync_application, but the description never names or contrasts against those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition (Argo CD refuses rollback while auto-sync is on) and the follow-up obligation (fix Git afterward). However, it does not route the agent to alternatives such as argocd_sync_application or explicitly state when-not to use rollback.

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