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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses that nothing is deleted, that history is preserved, that already-sent emails are untouched, the confirmation-preview flow, the full refusal set with details.code values, and the publisher permission model. For a mutation tool this is exceptional disclosure of side effects and failure modes.

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 the core action and the reassurance that nothing is deleted, then refusals and permissions. It is dense – the error-code enumeration and publisher list are heavy for one paragraph – but nearly every clause carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value ('the template with its new version, the version written and restoredFromVersion'). Combined with the refusal codes and permission rules, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top: it ties 'confirm'/'confirmationToken' to the preview flow and explains withoutImages as restoring 'it without those images' when an image asset was deleted. Semantics beyond the schema's one-line parameter docs.

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 ... current again') and explains the mechanism ('saving its fields ... as the template's next version'). Compared with lnkdrp_restore_email_template (unarchive) and lnkdrp_restore_version (generic), this is clearly distinguishable as a version-level restore that creates a new version rather than reverting.

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 when-to-use context, the preview/confirmation condition ('When emails made from the template were sent, LinkDrop asks the person to confirm first'), and points at lnkdrp_list_email_template_versions for history. It doesn't explicitly contrast with lnkdrp_restore_email_template or update_email_template, which would have made it a 5, but the operational guidance is strong.

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