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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation, but the description adds substantive behavioral context: the restored version is published as a new version, the chart id and URLs remain unchanged, the replaced version stays restorable, unpublished editor changes cause refusal, and authentication is required.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the triggering condition, followed by the restore mechanics and the refusal/authentication constraints. Every sentence conveys operational information without 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?

Given the destructive annotation, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description supplies the key missing behavioral and prerequisite context. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and what constraints to expect.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'version' comes from list_chart_versions, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'id' or 'acceptLosses'; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action and resource: restoring a saved chart to an earlier version. It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools by naming list_chart_versions as the source of the version and explaining that the restore creates a new version while preserving the chart id and URLs.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants a saved chart to go back to an earlier version from list_chart_versions.' It also states a clear precondition/refusal case: charts with unpublished editor changes cannot be restored, and authentication is required.

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