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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description usefully explains WHY the write is non-destructive: 'It is written as a new version; nothing in history is lost.' This resolves the apparent tension between a mutation and a false destructiveHint, which is genuine added value.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the non-destructive guarantee is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing is padded.

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 single-resource tool with a fully documented schema and covering annotations, the description supplies the essential purpose and the key semantic caveat about history preservation. Only the missing when-to-use routing against siblings leaves a small gap.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented by the schema itself. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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+resource (restore a file version) that is clearly distinct from read_file, write_file, and file_history. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the action is unambiguous.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no contrast with alternatives like write_file or file_history. The agent must infer usage from the schema's 'see file_history' note rather than from the description.

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