Restore an app version

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable context that the restore is non-destructive ('nothing is lost — history is preserved and you can roll forward again') and that it creates a NEW current version. This goes beyond structured metadata.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose, then adding workflow. The parenthetical about non-destructive behavior is useful but makes the sentence dense. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, non-destructive nature, usage trigger, prerequisite, and post-restore step. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with sibling context.

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?

The schema covers 'checkpoint' (with description) and 'command_id', but 'name' remains undocumented. The description adds context for 'checkpoint' via app_history but does little to explain 'name' or further clarify command_id. Schema coverage is 67%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool's function: rolling an app back to an earlier checkpoint by re-saving its HTML as a new current version. It distinguishes from siblings like app_history (which lists checkpoints) and open_app (which views), and clarifies it's non-destructive.

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?

Provides explicit when to use ('when a newer edit broke the UI'), prerequisite ('Get the checkpoint number from app_history'), and follow-up action ('after restoring, open_app to view it'). Does not mention when-not or alternatives, but gives clear context.

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