config_rollback

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: 'No undo' (irreversibility), platform-varying rollback depth, and the fact that dry_run opens a session, verifies reachability, and returns a digest of the state that would be replaced. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loads the [WRITE] tag and the core action, then layers caveats and a parameter block. Every sentence earns its place, though the dry_run sentence is dense and could be trimmed slightly.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the irreversibility, device-variability, and dry_run return behavior an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing given there is no output schema to explain.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It documents both parameters: dry_run's verify-and-report semantics and target as 'Device name from config.' Minor gap on what a null/default target resolves to, but overall strong compensation for the empty 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?

States a specific verb+resource (revert the last committed change) and names the underlying mechanism (NAPALM rollback()), plus the [WRITE] classification. This clearly separates it from siblings like config_replace, config_merge, and undo_apply.

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 scope 'last committed change' implies when it applies, and 'dry_run=True' explains a safe preview path. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the closest alternatives (undo_apply, undo_list, config_replace), leaving the agent to infer which to pick — implied rather than stated usage.

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