apply_script_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so admirably. It reveals that the config is snapshotted first and that the router itself reverts the change if the session drops or the post-apply health check fails. This is actionable, non-obvious behavioral information beyond simply saying 'apply a change.'

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key behavioral consequences with no wasted words.

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 rollback behavior is thoroughly documented, but the tool has four required parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no guidance about how to provide script or approval_code. An agent can understand why the tool exists but cannot fully invoke it confidently from this description alone.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the four required parameters. Device, reason, script, and especially approval_code remain obtuse; the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a change inside a RouterOS Safe Mode session.' It also adds distinctive behavioral context about snapshotting and auto-reverting. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like plan_script_change, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 Safe Mode and rollback framing implies this should be used for changes that need extra protection, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus a sibling like plan_script_change. It gives the context for use but not the exclusions or alternative routing.

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