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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is met. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the append-only snapshot model ('every edit is snapshotted to an append-only table'), which tells the agent the history is immutable and complete.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action stated first and the follow-up use (finding a version_number for restore) second. No filler or restated title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what is returned (past versions of prompt_text) and how to use a returned version_number. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 limit, prompt_id, in_workspace, and the before_version cursor are already documented in the schema. The description references the concept of a version_number but adds no format or pagination guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 past versions of a prompt template's `prompt_text`'. The 'past versions' scope implicitly separates it from the current-state siblings like prompts_get, though no sibling is named as an exclusion. Clear enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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 explicit usage context ('use this to browse history and find a version_number') and names the downstream tool `prompts.prompt_restore` that consumes the output. It lacks a when-not clause (e.g. use prompts_get for the current version), so it stops short of a 5.

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