rollback_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it's a mutation requiring confirmation, explains the confirmation flow in detail (returns requires_confirmation=true with success=false as normal), and notes that the custom part remains unchanged. This goes well beyond what annotations would provide.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then explains the confirmation flow. It is informative but could be slightly more concise. Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what the tool does, how to get the required version_id, the confirmation flow, and the behavior after the first call. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% with good descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description does mention the confirmation flow but that is already implied by the confirm 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?

The description clearly states the tool reverts the auto-generated part of the prompt to a previous version while preserving the custom part. This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like restore_default_prompt or get_prompt_history.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: first call without confirm to get the confirmation response, inform the user, stop, and let the system handle buttons. It also tells the agent to get version_id from get_prompt_history and not to call again after the confirmation response.

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