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

Beyond the annotations it explains that the change takes immediate effect on Kord's responses, requires 'write' scope, and — critically — that the operation is reversible because it saves the state it replaces as a new version. This last point adds meaningful nuance to the destructiveHint=true annotation rather than merely restating it. Extensive behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then effect, reversibility, use case, and scope. Every sentence carries real information, though the block is slightly dense for a single-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: immediate effect, reversibility/recovery path, required scope, and the origin of the required parameter. Nothing essential is left 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 description coverage is 100% and the single version_id parameter is already documented as a uuid in the schema. The description only points to the sibling list tool as the source, adding no format or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb (remet/restaure) and resource (Kord's configuration: custom instructions, prompt, profile) and anchors it to a version sourced from ficiel_list_agent_config_versions. An agent can distinguish this from ficiel_edit_agent_prompt / ficiel_edit_agent_profile without opening any 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 states a clear use case ('permet d'annuler une édition des instructions') and routes the agent to ficiel_list_agent_config_versions to obtain the version_id. It does not explicitly state a when-not condition or contrast against the sibling edit tools, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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