restore_config_backup

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint, but the description adds a strong WARNING that the operation replaces the running config. It also discloses that every destructive operation automatically captures a pre-change config revision ID, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the essential WARNING about replacing the running config. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, destructive behavior, and how to locate the revision ID. It could explicitly mention the confirm/dry_run workflow, but the schema handles those details, so the description is complete enough.

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 already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a pointer to get_config_history for finding revision_id, which is already mentioned in the schema's param description. No additional meaning is provided for confirm or dry_run.

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?

Description clearly states 'Restore pfSense configuration to a previous revision' with a specific verb and resource, and the warning clarifies it replaces the running config. This distinguishes it from related config history tools like get_config_history or delete_config_revision.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use get_config_history to find the revision to restore, providing a concrete companion tool and context for rollback. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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