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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing that the restore is non-destructive — the prior state is recorded as a new `restore` revision — and that the pipeline is returned. It omits permissions/auth requirements, whether live runs are affected, and what happens to revisions created after the target one.

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 action and the mechanism front-loaded and the return value last. No filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics (what gets recorded, what is returned). It leaves gaps on sourcing revision_id and on the operational side effects of restoring, which an agent needs before calling it.

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 0%, so both parameters rely entirely on the description, which says nothing about them. It never explains how to obtain a revision_id (presumably from pipeline_history_list) or whether pipeline_id accepts a slug versus internal ID.

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 ('Restore a pipeline') plus the mechanism (target revision state, recorded as a new `restore` revision) and the return value. It does not differentiate itself from the superficially similar sibling pipeline_deleted_restore, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to use it (rolling a pipeline back to a prior revision), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it and no pointer to alternatives such as pipeline_history_list to obtain a revision_id or pipeline_deleted_restore for undeleting a pipeline. Usage must be inferred.

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