rollback_snapshot

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

The annotations already flag this as destructive and not read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by naming exactly what gets restored (agent, schemas, triggers, MCP servers), but it does not explicitly state that the current configuration will be overwritten or that the rollback may be irreversible.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the component list is concise, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 operation with a single parameter, the description is minimally sufficient: it identifies the resource, the target state, and the affected components. However, it omits guidance on how to obtain the snapshot_id, what happens to the current agent state, and what response or confirmation to expect, especially since there is no output schema.

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%, so the one parameter (snapshot_id) is already documented as a UUID. The description adds only mild semantic context by clarifying that the snapshot is a 'publication snapshot,' which is helpful but does not materially expand beyond the schema.

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 states a clear action ('Restaura... um agente completo') and a specific target ('snapshot de publicação anterior'), and it enumerates the affected components: agent, schemas, triggers, and MCP servers. This makes the tool's purpose evident and largely distinguishes it from sibling version-rollback tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 usage is implied: use this tool to restore a full agent to a previous publication snapshot. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like rollback_version or mention exclusions, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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