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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by explaining that nothing is lost, the pre-restore state remains in history and is itself restorable, the project name is unchanged, and open collaborators see the change live. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating shared state.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then layers the important semantic caveats. It is slightly clause-heavy, but every clause (new state, history preserved, name unchanged, live update) carries distinct 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the semantics that matter: reversibility, scope of change, and visibility. It does not indicate what the call returns (new version id, updated project, etc.), which is the only notable 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (project_id from create_project/list_projects, version_id from list_versions). The description restates the version_id source but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('brings ... back') and resource ('an earlier version of a project'), and immediately clarifies that the result is a NEW current state rather than a historical rewind. It also names the sibling that supplies the input (list_versions), so the agent can distinguish this from retrieval tools without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit guardrail: 'Only when the user asks for an earlier version,' which tells the agent when not to reach for it. It also routes the agent to list_versions for the version_id. What's missing is a named alternative for the adjacent case (e.g., what to use if the user wants to view a past version instead of restore it).

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