rollback_to_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope of the operation ('selected revision and every newer') and session-level scoping, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, whether it creates a new revision, or how it affects instances, leaving important safety aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the core action and scope in 12 words, achieving excellent conciseness without sacrificing immediate clarity.

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?

For a destructive rollback operation with no annotations, the description omits critical context: the role of instance_id, the permanence of the undo, and any relationship to the output schema. While the output schema is available, the description is not complete enough for safe and correct invocation.

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 does not map 'selected revision' to the revision_id parameter or explain the purpose of instance_id. The agent cannot derive parameter meanings from the description beyond their names, and instance_id is entirely unexplained.

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 'Undo' with the resource 'FaceLink revision' and explicitly defines the scope as 'the selected revision and every newer', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_revision_history and undo_last_apply. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_revision_history, undo_last_apply, or any criteria for when a rollback is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the broad description.

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