revert_adom_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that this replaces the entire live ADOM DB in one irreversible call, that there is no dry-run or content screening (contrasted with the firewall-policy revert), that it writes only ADOM objects and not devices, and how to disable the safety gate via FMG_REVERT_SAFETY.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, then safety, then args — a sensible order. It is on the long side and includes a Returns block that duplicates the existing output schema, plus a few restated defaults, but no sentence is misleading or filler-heavy.

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 high-blast-radius destructive operation with six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description supplies mechanism, safety gate, follow-up workflow, and per-parameter meaning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all six parameters: adom, revision (with provenance: the `version` field from list_adom_revisions), name/desc defaults, locked semantics, and confirm's behavior with its interaction with FMG_REVERT_SAFETY=disabled.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+target: 'Revert the live ADOM DB to a past revision.' It also explains the underlying clone mechanism and distinguishes this from the firewall-policy revert, so an agent can tell it apart from revert_device_revision, revert_firewall_policy, and diff_adom_revision without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when this applies, how it works (clone-based revert, since FortiManager has no dedicated call), and routes the agent to list_adom_revisions for the revision value and to preview_install/install_package for pushing restored config to devices. The gating condition (confirm=True under FMG_REVERT_SAFETY=strict) is spelled out.

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