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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: later-added fields are hidden rather than deleted, renames are reversed, and stored values persist. That materially reframes how risky the operation actually is. It stops short of stating whether the rollback itself can be undone or what permissions are needed.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the three consequences. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact.

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 full schema coverage, a complete annotation set, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the operation does and how it affects fields, renames, and stored data. Nothing essential 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%, so model, version, and version_id are already documented, including the 'pass this or version' choice. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb+resource: reactivating an earlier schema version for a single model. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like crm_define_model or crm_delete_model, though it never names those alternatives 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 by the description (restore an earlier version), but there is no explicit guidance on when to roll back versus redefining the model, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the situation but must reason about it.

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