rollback_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the action is immediate and forces a router reboot, which is a significant side effect. However, it does not state whether the rollback is destructive, irreversible, requires elevated permissions, or what downtime to expect.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the reboot warning follows immediately, making the definition easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool is a simple mutation with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits key usage context and completely ignores the one parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on when to invoke it or what the 'name' argument does.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, and the description does not mention or explain it at all. The default 'router' is in the schema, but the description adds no meaning about what the parameter selects or how it affects the rollback.

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 verb ('restore') and resource ('pre-change backup'), and adds the critical side effect that the router reboots. It is clear what the tool does and how it differs from passive read or configuration tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_changes, confirm_changes, or run_command. The word 'Immediately' implies urgency, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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