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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's addition that the current state is auto-saved as a version first, plus undo support, meaningfully explains why the operation is non-destructive. It stops short of describing scope (what exactly is restored: tracks, effects, clips) or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical about the auto-save behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical safety behavior (auto-save and undo). It is incomplete on restore scope and on the unexplained versionId parameter, both of which an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 only 50%: projectId is documented in the schema as defaulting to the open project, but versionId has no description anywhere. The description never mentions parameters, so it does not compensate by explaining where a versionId comes from (e.g., list_versions) or what versionId identifies.

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 names a specific verb ('put the timeline back') and resource ('a saved version'), so an agent can tell it restores state rather than creating or listing versions. It doesn't explicitly contrast with neighbors like revert_changes, keep_changes, or undo, but the 'saved version' framing is clear enough to separate it from most siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'put the timeline back to a saved version,' and the note that undo works hints at when it's safe to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as revert_changes or compare_versions, and no prerequisites stated.

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