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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that a new history entry is created and that some plan re-checking occurs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what gets overwritten, whether the restore is reversible, or what happens if the expected revision does not match.

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 compact, front-loads the main verb, and contains no filler. Minor deduction for the vague phrasing 'this catalogue' and 'the plan', and for combining two ideas in a semicolon-heavy sentence, but overall it is economically written.

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 destructive tool with three required parameters and no output schema, an agent needs to know what expected_revision means, how to obtain it, and what the restore actually changes. The description only gives a high-level action and a side effect, leaving significant operational and prerequisite gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. catalogue_id, publication_id, and expected_revision are left entirely to the raw schema names and patterns, so an agent cannot understand what 'expected_revision' refers to, where it comes from, or how it relates to the restore plan.

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 ('Restores') and a resource ('a version of this catalogue'), and adds a side effect ('creates a new history entry'), which clearly conveys the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like foliade_publish_enrichments or foliade_update_enrichments, but the restore action is distinct enough that an agent can infer the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no explanation of what 're-checking the plan' entails or when it is required. The only implicit signal is that this is a restore operation, which is not enough for an agent to reliably choose it over similar enrichment-related tools.

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