Rollback Migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether rollback is destructive, whether content or schema changes created by the migration are reverted, whether it is idempotent or reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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 sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is good, but the extreme brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined concision. It is short because it omits necessary context, not because it says everything efficiently.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), this is a state-changing migration operation with no annotations and an undocumented parameter. The description should at minimum state prerequisites, side effects, and the identity format of migration_id; it leaves all of that to inference.

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% and the description never explains migration_id. The agent cannot tell whether this expects a machine name, a numeric migration ID, or a config entity ID, and there is no example or format hint to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pair (rollback + migration) and adds a scoping qualifier ('completed'), so the core action is understandable. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many migration-adjacent siblings such as run_migration_test, validate_migration, or generate_migration_yaml, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The single word 'completed' faintly implies the migration must already have run, but nothing tells the agent when rollback is the right call versus re-running or validating the migration.

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