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

With only false boolean annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the last 5 renders are archived, the previous render is archived in place so the rollback itself is reversible, and rolling back an image marks the rendered clip out of date. This goes well beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not describe failure modes or prerequisites.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and each sentence contributes useful behavioral detail. It is slightly wordy and contains a typo ('restales'), but it remains concise and scannable.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and only negative annotation hints, the description is nearly complete: it explains history depth, reversibility, and side effects on rendered clips. It stops short of describing return values or error conditions, but an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for project_id, segment_number, asset_type, and index. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that asset_type refers to image or video, so the schema carries the semantic load and the description earns a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a previously rendered version of a segment's image or video.' It clearly identifies what the tool acts on and how it differs from regenerating or updating assets, especially alongside the sibling regenerate_segment_asset.

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 description gives clear context: a regeneration that turned out worse can be reversed by rolling back to an archived render. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is strongly implied by the 'regen that came out worse is reversible' framing.

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