Delimit Release Rollback

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, explaining that the tool invokes backends.ops_bridge.release_rollback, mutates the live environment, may return partial results on backends without rollback automation, and does not write to the ledger or notify automatically. It also tells the agent to verify with delimit_release_status afterwards. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 long but highly structured with clear sections: summary, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place, especially given the destructive and experimental nature of the operation. The main action is front-loaded.

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, experimental environment-wide rollback, the description covers the full workflow, selection criteria, alternatives, side effects, failure modes, verification step, and missing automatic behaviors. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the three required parameters. The description adds operational meaning by explaining that 'version' is the current failing release, 'to_version' is the prior known-good target, and that delimit_release_history should be used to choose it. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revert a whole environment to a prior release version.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly stating it reverts an entire environment in lockstep, not a single app at the SHA level. The experimental marker adds an important scoping note.

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 'When to use' section names concrete triggers (delimit_release_validate/delimit_obs_alerts indicating a cross-service regression) and gives a typical sequence with adjacent tools. 'When NOT to use' explicitly excludes single-app rollbacks, npm publish rollbacks, and roll-forwards, naming the correct alternatives. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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