panorama_restore_candidate_operation

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

The description matches the destructiveHint annotation and adds valuable behavioral detail: reversal happens in reverse order, only captured XPath values are restored, unrelated changes are untouched, and a valid operation_id is required. This goes beyond the bare annotation and gives an agent a realistic model of the tool's 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 four short sentences with no filler. The destructive marker and core action are front-loaded, followed by scope constraints and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: scope, ordering, exclusions, and required input. It could optionally mention error behavior for an invalid operation_id, but that is not a critical gap.

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 100%, with both operation_id and firewall documented. The description reinforces operation_id's role but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('restores'), the resource ('XPath values captured for one operation_id'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a global candidate revert. This makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like panorama_verify_candidate_operation or remove candidate tools.

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 gives clear operational context: use it to restore a single prior operation by operation_id, and it explicitly says it does not perform a global revert or touch unrelated changes. It does not name an alternative tool or provide an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the scope is well constrained.

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