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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description's rollback framing is consistent with that but adds no new behavioral detail such as whether the current schema is overwritten, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to unsaved changes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage hint and the parameter pointer. 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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, trigger, and input provenance adequately. It leaves out side effects on the live schema and any permission requirements, which would round it out.

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%, and the schema already documents both `version` (including its list_versions provenance) and the `expectedProjectId` targeting semantics. The description repeats the list_versions pointer without adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restores the schema to a previous version') and clarifies the trigger intent ('undo/roll back changes'). It also points to list_versions as the companion lookup tool, which separates it from the read-only version siblings (get_version, diff_versions).

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when the user wants to undo/roll back changes') and tells the agent where to get the required input ('found with list_versions'). It does not say when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as replace_schema or rollback_import, so it stops short of a 5.

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