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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried. The description does add real context beyond them: the restore target is limited to changes made through this API. It omits whether the restore itself is recorded as a history action (and thus itself undoable).

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The trailing target-selection clause makes the sentence slightly harder to parse than necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, undo scope, and target selection. The one notable gap — how a restore interacts with the action history (does it append a new entry?) — is minor given the annotations already flag it as destructive and idempotent.

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 100%; both parameters are already documented, including 'the latest if omitted' on actionId. The description's 'the latest one, or the one named by actionId' restates rather than extends the schema. 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 ('Puts a resume back to how it was before a change') plus the scope restriction that only changes made through this API are restorable. The undo semantics distinguish it from update_resume and get_resume, though it never names those 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 the phrasing 'put back to how it was before a change' — an agent can infer this is the undo path rather than update_resume. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of rollback vs. re-edit tradeoffs, and no reference to siblings.

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