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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the undo semantics, that nothing is deleted, and that the call costs no credits. The 'nothing is deleted' note usefully scopes the destructiveHint=true annotation rather than contradicting it (the live version is still superseded). It does not say what happens to the currently live version, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

The purpose clause is well front-loaded, but the tail is padded and garbled: 'Free. Cost: Free: no credits.' says the same thing twice in an awkward fragment. One of those sentences does not earn 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 simple two-parameter mutation with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is non-deleting, and that it is free. Only the effect on the previously live version is unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (video_id from list_videos, version_id from list_versions). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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: 'Make an earlier version of a video live again (undo)'. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like list_versions or edit_video, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 the undo framing (use it to roll back to a prior version), but the description names no alternatives and states no prerequisites or when-not conditions. An agent must infer the trigger scenario from the verb alone.

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