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

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds important behavioral context by saying it replaces the running deployment, which tells the agent what effect to expect beyond the structured hints.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and effect, then gives the required inputs and version constraint. There is no wasted text, and the MCP version note is relevant to the mcp_version parameter.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with full schema descriptions and annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention the result of applying a version, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for the version parameter by saying it is the internal version returned by get_app_versions, going beyond the schema's short 'Version id to apply' description.

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 and resource: restore an app's stored version by replacing its running deployment. It clearly separates this from simply deploying an app, though it does not explicitly name deploy_app as the alternative.

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 gives a clear usage context and prerequisite: call this to restore a stored version, using the internal version returned by get_app_versions. It does not spell out when not to use it or compare it directly with deploy_app.

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