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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only) by disclosing that the restore writes a new version labeled 'restored version N' and is therefore itself undoable, and by describing refusal behavior for non-kept versions with the valid range returned. It also documents the return shape ({version, stored, changed}) which no output schema provides.

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?

Three tight sentences with the state change front-loaded, then usage intent, then edge-case and return behavior. The final clause about 'save_career_record's result without hints' is terse to the point of being slightly opaque, but it earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the mutation's effect, the recoverability of that effect, input constraints, refusal behavior, and the response shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 100% and the schema already ties numbering to list_career_versions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by constraining valid input to *kept* versions and explaining the refusal payload for out-of-range requests.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Make a kept version the current career record again') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like save_career_record and listing tools like list_career_versions. An agent can tell exactly what state transition this performs.

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 the intent it serves: 'undoing a change or going back to an earlier state,' which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also states the exclusion — non-kept versions are refused — but never names a sibling as an alternative for the cases this tool cannot handle.

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