restore_config

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. It fully explains the atomic workflow: pre-restore backup, replaying commands in one CLI session, saving to EEPROM, rebooting, and reconnecting. It also explicitly warns that any line error triggers a rollback. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and safety behavior.

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 efficient and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise paragraph detailing the atomic behavior, and a clear Args section. No redundant or filler sentences exist; every word adds value.

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 description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and safety mechanisms, which is sufficient for a complex restore operation. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or how success/failure is reported beyond rollback on error. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the return value would have made it fully complete. Still, the core usage is fully specified.

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 provides only names and types, with 0% description coverage. The description adds critical meaning: path is defined as 'Path to a backup file (as returned by backup_config)' and confirm is explained as 'Must be True to apply. Dry-run by default.' This fully compensates for the schema's bare bones, making the tool safely invocable.

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 clearly states 'Restore FC config by replaying a backup file's CLI commands, then save+reboot.' This names the specific verb (restore), the resource (FC config), and the mechanism (replaying CLI commands). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like backup_config (which creates backups) and save_and_reboot (which only saves and reboots without restoring).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: restoring a backup file. It also explains the dry-run default and that confirm must be True to apply. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, such as noting that save_and_reboot is only for saving settings without restoring, or that cli/cli_batch are for manual command execution. This omission keeps it from a 5.

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