config_rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a write operation (destructive), irreversible, platform-dependent, and explains the dry_run mode in detail, including that it opens a session, verifies reachability, and reports a digest.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured with sections (warning, dry_run behavior). Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and 2 parameters, the description covers the essential behavior, dry_run nuance, and platform dependency. It does not detail the return format on actual rollback, but the explanation of dry_run's output is sufficient for an agent to infer typical tool behavior.

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%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: dry_run is explained with its behavior and effect, and target is described as 'Device name from config.' This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 last committed change via NAPALM rollback(), specifies it is a write operation, and adds 'No undo' for irreversibility. It distinguishes from sibling tools like config_backup, config_diff, config_merge, config_replace, and confirm_commit.

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 explains that device support varies and rollback depth is platform-dependent, and details dry_run behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes it implicit.

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