Restore an app version

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the operation is non-destructive because history is preserved and the agent can roll forward again, and the restore creates a new current version rather than mutating history. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main added value is explaining the mechanism and reversibility, though it doesn't mention permissions or effects on associated app data.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose/mechanism first, then the trigger, then the prerequisite and follow-up. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 output schema, the description covers the mechanism, reversibility, trigger, prerequisite, and next step. It is nearly complete, though it says nothing about whether app data (versus HTML) is affected or any permission requirements.

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 coverage is 67%: 'checkpoint' and 'command_id' are already documented in the schema, and the description's 'Get the checkpoint number from list_app_checkpoints' largely repeats the schema note. The 'name' parameter is undocumented in both places. With mid-level coverage, the description neither compensates nor detracts, so baseline 3 fits.

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 ('roll an app back') and resource ('one of its earlier checkpoints'), and immediately explains the mechanism (re-saves that checkpoint's HTML as a NEW current one). This clearly separates it from siblings like save_app, edit_app, and promote_app.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition ('Use when a newer edit broke the UI'), the prerequisite source ('Get the checkpoint number from list_app_checkpoints'), and the follow-up action ('after restoring, open_app to view it'). The when-to-use and routing are fully specified.

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