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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the restore creates a new version and the replaced version is preserved and can itself be restored, which tells the agent the operation is history-preserving rather than an overwrite.

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 effect is front-loaded and the history-preservation detail and version-source pointer follow in priority order.

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 mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers effect, reversibility, and parameter sourcing, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It could add a note on whether other collaborators see the restored version, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining where `version` values come from (read_workbook's `versions`), which the schema itself does not convey.

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 and resource ('Makes an earlier version of a workbook its current one again') and clarifies the resulting state ('as a new version'). This clearly separates it from write_workbook, commit_workbook, and checkout_workbook among the siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for use and points to read_workbook's `versions` as the source of valid version identifiers. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or name a competing sibling to prefer instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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