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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the interesting behavior — that only industry_keywords is overwritten and the values come from a pre-run snapshot — but says nothing about permissions, whether the rollback is idempotent or repeatable, what happens if the run made no correction, or what the response contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with the mutation and its target front-loaded, then the snapshot semantics, then the undo framing. No filler to cut.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, target field, and data source adequately but leaves the agent guessing about the return value and failure modes. A brief note on what a successful rollback yields would round it out.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does bind both parameters to concepts ('the search's' → search_id, 'the given ICP-QA run' → run_id), which is better than nothing, but it adds no format expectations (both are UUIDs) and no error semantics for an unknown or stale run_id.

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?

Names a specific verb (restores) and a specific target field (industry_keywords), plus the scoping detail (snapshot taken before the given ICP-QA run). 'Undo an auto-correction' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling sdr_icp_qa_autocorrect, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical 'undo an auto-correction' tells the agent when this tool applies, but there are no explicit preconditions (e.g. the run must have made a correction), no when-not guidance, and no named alternative such as sdr_icp_qa_autocorrect.

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