rollback_version

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

The description discloses that a rollback automatically results in a new version being recorded, which adds useful behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations. The wording 'O trigger' is confusing, but the key behavioral point—rollback produces a new version—is still conveyed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides relevant behavioral context, but the ambiguous use of 'trigger' hurts clarity and prevents a top score.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, resource scope, and the notable side effect of creating a new version. However, it does not explain what the response contains, whether the operation is reversible beyond the new version record, or how target_version relates to the current version history, leaving it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so resource_type, resource_id, and target_version are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond mapping 'recurso' and 'versão anterior' to those fields, which is adequate but not additive.

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 a specific action and resource: it restores an individual resource to a previous version. The phrase 'recurso individual' helps distinguish this from snapshot-level rollback, though it does not explicitly name the sibling rollback_snapshot. The second sentence about 'trigger' is somewhat ambiguous and slightly muddles the purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided beyond the inherent definition. The description does not mention alternatives such as rollback_snapshot, list_versions, or compare_versions, nor does it explain when this tool should or should not be selected.

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