opn_config_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely important trait: only the firewall picks up the new config immediately, while other services keep running on the old config until reconfigured. It also flags the confirm=true gate. It does not say whether the current config is preserved before overwrite or whether the action is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and id source, then the caveat, then the confirm requirement. No filler, though the telegraphic phrasing leaves some edges rough.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive restore operation with zero annotation coverage and zero schema documentation, the silence on reload_firewall and on reversibility/current-config preservation leaves an agent without key decision information.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm=true and the provenance of 'backup', but reload_firewall (defaulting to true, with real consequences for the partial-apply behavior described) is never mentioned.

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 and resource: 'Restore config.xml from a history entry', and points to opn_config_history as the id source, which distinguishes it from the history-listing sibling. It does not, however, distinguish itself from opn_firewall_revert_now, the other revert-family tool in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a clear when: restoring from a recorded history entry, and tells the agent where the required id comes from. It omits any when-not guidance or comparison to opn_firewall_revert_now / opn_firewall_confirm, leaving the agent to infer which revert tool to pick.

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