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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them by explaining that nothing is deleted and the old version is copied into a new version, so history is preserved. It stops short of covering permissions, idempotency, or what the response contains.

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 zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the clarifying non-destructive mechanism follows immediately.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its side effects well, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only the return value (e.g., the new version identifier) is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 artifact_id, version, and workspace_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the structured fields provide, which is the baseline-3 case.

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) and resource (artifact version), and the second sentence clarifies the exact semantics of the operation. It does not explicitly name the near-sibling restore_document_version, but the artifact-vs-document resource distinction is clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation name and the explanation of the copy-as-new-version behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternative restore_document_version or how it differs.

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