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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: this is forward-only, writes a NEW revision, updates the live flow doc, and preserves original revisions. This goes beyond a simple 'revert' and prevents the agent from assuming destructive history rewriting. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects on downstream nodes, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the forward-only mechanism, and the prerequisite. The most important constraint (forward-only) is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the behavior, the prerequisite, and the non-destructive nature. It could add what the response contains or error conditions, but the agent has enough to call it correctly. The sibling list shows related flow tools, and the description's reference to get_flow_revisions fills the main contextual 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the two parameters implicitly: flowId (the flow to revert) and targetVersion (the previous version). However, it doesn't add detail beyond the schema's names and types, such as how to obtain targetVersion or what happens if it's invalid. The description's mention of `get_flow_revisions` helps, but the parameter semantics are only partially enriched.

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 clearly states the action ('Revert a flow to a previous version') and the resource ('flow'), and it distinguishes the mechanism from a destructive rollback by explaining it writes a new revision. This differentiates it from siblings like delete_flow or update_flow.

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 description explicitly says to use it after `get_flow_revisions` confirms the target version exists, which is a clear when-to-use instruction. It also implies the alternative (checking revisions first) and the forward-only constraint, giving an agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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