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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, adding that the operation is gated on explicit approval and scoped to the authenticated tenant. It does not overstate safety or omit any behavioral contradictions.

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 front-loaded sentence contains the action, resource, scope, and prerequisite with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is a destructive two-parameter action with no output schema, so the description should identify where versionId and approvalToken come from and the effect on the current workspace. It gives the approval prerequisite but leaves those operational details to inference.

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 0% and neither parameter is explained in the description. 'after explicit approval' vaguely points at approvalToken, but versionId's relationship to list_workspace_versions and the format/source of either value is absent.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Restore', and names the exact resource, 'an earlier workspace version', plus scope ('authenticated tenant') and prerequisite ('explicit approval'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as list_workspace_versions, which only lists versions.

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 prerequisite context: restore only after explicit approval, for the authenticated tenant. It does not name sibling alternatives or give a when-not-to-use clause, but the intent is unambiguous enough to route an agent.

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