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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the important non-obvious behavior that the restore appends a NEW version rather than overwriting, so history is preserved. This explains why a mutation is non-destructive, which the bare annotations cannot convey. It does not cover idempotency nuances (e.g. that repeating the call creates another version) despite idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the append-only consequence, then the prerequisite. No filler and no repetition.

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 no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what is being restored, the versioning semantics, and the prerequisite lookup tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents each parameter including the note that version_number comes from agents.prompt_history. The description largely restates that, so it meets the baseline without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (restore) plus the exact resource and field targeted (`prompt_text`), keyed by version_number. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as agents_prompt_history, agents_update, and prompts_prompt_restore.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the prerequisite workflow: call `agents.prompt_history` first to obtain the version_number. That sequencing guidance is exactly what an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly rather than guessing a version number.

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