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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation creates a new `restore` revision and returns the workflow, but it does not clarify whether the current live workflow is overwritten, whether authorization is required, or what constraints exist on the revision being restored.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and its key behavioral consequence are front-loaded, and the return value is mentioned succinctly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is only partially complete. It covers the high-level action, audit-revision behavior, and return value, but leaves parameter semantics and several operational details to inference.

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 the description needs to explain the two required parameters. It only indirectly implies that `revision_id` identifies the revision to restore to and `workflow_id` identifies the workflow; it provides no format, constraints, or meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a workflow to the state of a revision.' It also clarifies the mechanism ('recorded as a new `restore` revision') and return ('Returns the workflow'), which distinguishes it from history read tools such as workflow_history_get and workflow_history_list.

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 implies the tool should be used when a workflow needs to be rolled back to a prior revision, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like workflow_deleted_restore, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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