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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and 'restores ... to its previous state' is consistent with that mutation profile. The description adds a bit of context about the undo semantics but does not disclose the key behavioral traits an agent would want, such as whether the undoId is single-use/consumed, what exactly is overwritten, or whether the restore is reversible.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and its required input, with zero padding or redundancy. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The origin of undoId is covered, but the description stops short of noting the undoId's lifecycle (single-use), which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already carries a pattern and the description 'undoId from update_assignment_draft.' The tool description restates that same origin without adding format, validity-window, or edge-case detail, so it does not exceed the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('restores') and resource ('assignment draft') and specifies the mechanism ('previous state using an undoId from a draft update'). It ties itself to the relevant sibling update_assignment_draft, giving the agent a usable anchor, though it doesn't explicitly name what it is not versus other restore/update tools.

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?

The phrase 'using an undoId from a draft update' implies it must follow update_assignment_draft, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no indication of how long the undoId stays valid, and no statement about alternatives.

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