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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the non-obvious operational fact that no restore tool exists and rollback must be done by rewriting via `flow_set` — the kind of trap an agent would otherwise fall into. It also discloses the output content (per-save step diffs and lead movement/orphan counts) that the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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?

Front-loaded with what you get, then the caveat, then the alternatives — a sensible order with no filler. It runs slightly long across four sentences, and the fragment 'The history of edits' restates the first sentence without earning 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?

With only two well-documented parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the remaining burden is explaining what comes back — which the description does concretely (per-version change audit, step-level diffs, lead movement/orphan counts). Nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret results 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%, with `limit` self-documented as 'most recent versions to return' and `campaignId` pointing at `campaign_list`/`campaign_create` as sources. The description does not add ordering, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so this is the baseline case.

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 resource (every saved version of a campaign's sequence) plus the payload each entry carries (steps added/removed/edited, leads moved or orphaned), which is far more than the title's 'Sequence version history'. It explicitly separates itself from `flow_audit` (latest save only) and `flow_get` (current sequence).

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?

It gives a use case ('read it to explain how a sequence got into its current state'), an explicit non-use with its consequence ('it is not a way back'), the workaround (rollback means calling `flow_set` with the old steps), and two named alternatives with the conditions that select them.

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