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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds context annotations cannot convey: an automatic snapshot labeled 'Before restore by AI agent' is taken first, the current graph is overwritten, and the call returns a flow id plus an open link. The pre-restore snapshot detail materially changes how an agent should reason about risk.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, backup behavior, destructive overwrite, and return value. The destructive overwrite is stated up front rather than buried.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return value (flow id and open link). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering both params, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so flow_id and version_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 for fully-covered params.

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 ('Restore a saved version of a Wavelength flow'), which cleanly separates it from the adjacent version tools (compare_versions, list_versions). An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the tool restores a version, so an agent infers it follows list_versions/compare_versions, but neither the when-to-use condition nor the alternative (e.g., staying read-only) is stated. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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