Roll back persistent profile integration

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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds operational context by requiring a specific confirmation string and mutation opt-in, which is not present in structured data. However, it does not detail what files are overwritten or the backup mechanism beyond 'latest backed-up', so some gaps remain.

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 concise sentences: the first delivers the core action, the second states the required prerequisite. No filler or redundant information, and the most critical operational detail (confirmation value) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 mutation with two path parameters, the description is too sparse. It provides the confirmation string but fails to explain how to populate `backup_path` and `config_path` or when to use this tool relative to install/uninstall operations. The output schema exists but does not compensate for these input-side gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the expected value for `confirmation`, leaving `backup_path` and `config_path` entirely unaddressed. The schema titles provide vague hints ('Backup Path', 'Config Path') but no functional meaning, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 states a specific action ('Restore the latest backed-up Clash Verge enhancement files') with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from install/uninstall siblings by focusing on rollback, though 'persistent profile integration' in the title is not echoed in the description, creating slight ambiguity.

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 only mentions a prerequisite ('Requires mutation opt-in and confirmation=ROLLBACK_PROFILE_INTEGRATION') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like install_failover and uninstall_monitor are not referenced, leaving the selection context unclear.

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