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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that rollback creates a new version instead of erasing history, making the operation reversible. This is valuable behavioral context that helps an agent understand side effects despite the destructive hint. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key behavioral nuance, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the operation, the main side effect, and the reversibility. It does not describe return values or explicitly guide alternative tool selection, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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% and the only parameter, targetVersion, is already documented as 'Version number to restore, from list_configuration_versions.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the complete schema.

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 action and resource: 'Restore a previous configuration version.' It adds a useful distinction—rollback creates a new version rather than erasing history—so the tool's purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apply_configuration.

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 intended use (restoring a previous configuration version) is implied by the description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Alternatives such as apply_configuration or list_configuration_versions are not mentioned.

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