rollback_hardening_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it rejects drift (a guard condition) and collects after-evidence, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the guard conditions after the semicolon. 'Collects after evidence' is slightly jargon-heavy but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers the precondition, the drift-rejection behavior, and the evidence collection, leaving only plan_id provenance unstated.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does no work here. The description adds only indirect meaning for plan_id by requiring it reference a successfully applied plan; it does not document the id format or source.

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 (Restore) and resource (backed-up managed configuration) scoped to 'a successfully applied plan', which distinguishes it from apply_hardening_plan. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so differentiation requires inference.

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 phrase 'for a successfully applied plan' is an implicit precondition, and 'rejects drift' hints at a failure condition, but the description never states when to roll back versus re-applying or auditing, nor any exclusions.

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