Rollback Change

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds specifics: the exact rollback mechanisms for RouterOS (diff and reverse apply) and SwOS (re-POST the '.b' blob). It also mentions dryRun=true for preview and the data directory requirement, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, with the core action in the first and key usage hints (dryRun, requirement) in the second. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 rollback tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: how the rollback works on both platforms, the dryRun preview option, and the environment requirement. It doesn't mention potential failure modes (e.g., missing journal ID) but these are not required. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 each parameter (journalId, dryRun, routerId, confirmationToken) is already documented in the schema. The description adds context for journalId (from write-journal.ndjson) and mentions dryRun preview, but it doesn't explain routerId or confirmationToken beyond the schema. Since the schema covers basics, baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value.

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 action: 'Restore device state to before a write, identified by its journal ID.' It specifies the resource (device state), the identifier (journal ID), and distinguishes from sibling tools like write_swos_blob and apply_plan by focusing on rollback. The RouterOS/SwOS mechanism descriptions further clarify scope.

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 advises using dryRun=true to preview, which is a clear usage guideline for safe verification. It also mentions a prerequisite (MIKROMCP_DATA_DIR) and implies that this tool is for undoing writes, which distinguishes it from alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for rollback or when not to use it, so a 4 is appropriate.

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