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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the current graph is snapshotted as a revision first so the restore is itself undoable, and the flow keeps its name and on/off state. This exceeds what the annotations convey, though it omits auth requirements and failure cases.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the most decision-relevant detail (reversibility). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 2-param, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations present, the description covers the key behavioral contract (reversible, preserves name/enabled state). It stops short of edge cases (invalid/missing revision) or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete.

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 (id, revisionId) are already documented as UUIDs with clear semantics. The description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: restoring a saved version of a flow. It contrasts implicitly with siblings like neuron_restore_deleted_flow (which restores deleted flows) and neuron_sites_rollback, but does not name them explicitly. An agent can grasp the action, though it must infer the distinction from siblings.

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 ('put a saved version back') but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., versus restore_deleted_flow or list_flow_revisions to find a revisionId). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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