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

Annotations mark it as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: current content is not lost but becomes another version, explaining why destructiveHint=false. It still omits auth/permission needs and any conflict behavior, so it is not a full 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and the referenced sibling, with the non-loss guarantee placed immediately after. Zero waste.

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 with annotations and no output schema, it conveys the action, the source of versions, and the reversibility guarantee. It does not address optimistic-concurrency conflicts implied by base_version, a minor remaining 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 the schema already documents document_id, slot, base_version, and workspace_id. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, which is the expected baseline when structured fields carry the load.

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 ('Vuelve un documento a una de sus versiones anteriores') and distinguishes itself from the document-version listing sibling by naming get_document_versions as the way to obtain the target version. Clear enough for an agent to select it without opening the schema.

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 establishes the workflow context by pointing to get_document_versions as the source of versions to restore to. There is no explicit when-not guidance or exclusion against restore_artifact_version/restore_from_trash, but the context is clear.

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