rollback

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

Annotations already flag destructive and write behavior; the description adds concrete behavioral details: irreversible steps are skipped, workflow state becomes 'failed', and it works in any state except 'completed'. It also notes the return value and advises checking get_workflow_status afterward, transparently setting expectations.

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 moderately concise, starting with a clear verb phrase and including alternative guidance. The Args/Returns sections add useful context, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

All essential aspects are covered: purpose, alternatives, state constraints, behavior on irreversible steps, and post-rollback verification. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage, this is complete.

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?

The schema declares workflow_id as a required string, and the description merely restates 'The workflow ID to rollback.' With 0% schema coverage, the description does not provide additional semantic info such as format, source, or constraints beyond the obvious, but it at least lists the parameter clearly.

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 uses the specific verb 'abort' and 'rollback' with the resource 'workflow', clearly stating it undoes completed steps. It explicitly distinguishes itself from cancel_workflow by specifying when to use each, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool versus cancel_workflow: use rollback for already-run steps, and cancel_workflow for not-yet-started or rejected workflows. It also specifies the allowed states ('any state except completed') and the resulting state ('failed'), providing clear usage conditions.

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