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

Annotations already disclose idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics beyond those: rolling back mutates the current version in place 'without creating a new one', which tells the agent the version history is not appended. It's consistent with the annotations and adds real value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place with 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?

With only 2 params and no output schema, the bar is moderate, and the description covers purpose and the no-new-version behavior. But it leaves the toolId parameter entirely unexplained and doesn't say what happens to the version being replaced (does the current one stay in history?), which an agent might need.

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 50% – 'version' is documented in the schema, but 'toolId' has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no scope, format, or source for toolId), so it neither compensates for the gap nor improves on the schema. Baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('restore an earlier version', 'Makes that version current') tied to a specific resource (a tool's version). It's clear what it does, but it doesn't name or distinguish itself from siblings like publish or delete_tool, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The opening sentence explicitly gives the trigger: 'Use when the user wants an older version of a tool back.' That's a clear when-to-use condition. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., publish for a new version), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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