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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: result ordering, the hard cap of 3 revisions, the per-entry fields (who, when, origin), and the origin taxonomy (editor, mcp, restore). It stops short of pagination/truncation semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability and ordering first, entry contents second, operational guidance third. No filler, no repetition of the name, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing exactly what the returned revisions contain (actor, timestamp, origin) and their ordering and count limit. Combined with annotations covering safety and the 100%-covered single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('UUID of the flow'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'of a flow' implicitly confirms the id identifies the flow but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the last saved versions of a flow') plus scope details: newest first, capped at 3. It also describes what each entry represents (the flow as it was before a change replaced it), so an agent can distinguish this from neuron_list_flows or neuron_get_flow_revision 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('Back up before risky edits by checking this') and names the follow-up tool (neuron_restore_flow_revision). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling neuron_get_flow_revision (single revision fetch) or neuron_list_deleted_flows, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative story is clear but not exhaustive.

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