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

Annotations mark it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds a meaningful refusal condition not captured by annotations, which is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't say what editing entails or how the version is restored.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main use case followed by the refusal caveat. No filler.

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-param mutation with no output schema, the missing documentation of the 'version' parameter and of what 'open/edit' means operationally (does it switch context? return a draft?) leaves gaps, though the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 50%. The formula parameter is documented in-schema (id or exact name), but the version parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: transitioning into a past version for in-place editing without cloning. The 'in place vs. clone' contrast distinguishes it from branch_version/duplicate_formula, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 when-to-use condition ('user wants to go back and edit a past version directly') and an exclusion ('refused for a version a batch was made from'). Alternatives like branch_version aren't named.

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