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

With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already declared, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the rollback is non-erasing because it writes a new version, and is therefore itself reversible. That materially informs the agent's risk assessment beyond what the annotations state.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is stated first and the consequence follows as justification. Every clause earns 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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description explains the key outcome (a new version is created). It does not mention failure modes or what the call returns, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 the single parameter already documents its format and points at list_configuration_versions as the source. The description adds no further parameter constraints, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: restoring a previous configuration version. It is clear what the tool does and implicitly contrasts with version-mutating siblings like apply_configuration and propose_configuration, but it never names an alternative to disambiguate the choice.

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 only implied by 'restore a previous configuration version.' There is no explicit statement of when to prefer rollback over apply_configuration, propose_configuration, or publish_territories, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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