Revert Artifact Version

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

The annotations already mark it as write-only and non-idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: the existing current version is flipped to 'reverted' and kept, and re-running reverts again. This explains the non-idempotency and the fate of the old version, going beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first explains the action and side effect, the second warns about non-idempotency, and the third clarifies parameter semantics. No fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given its complexity (write operation with side effects), the description is complete: it covers the behavior, side effect, return value, parameter source, and non-idempotency. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the description states what is returned. All necessary guidance for correct invocation is present.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the semantics by clarifying that version_id is the version to RESTORE (not delete) and providing its provenance via list_artifact_versions. It also notes the reason parameter is optional and recorded, adding nuance beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: 'Restore an earlier artifact version (F5) to current' with a specific verb and resource. It also contrasts with siblings like list_artifact_versions and review_artifact by emphasizing the restore action and return value.

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 description explicitly directs the agent to get version_id from list_artifact_versions and never guess it, providing a clear prerequisite and warning. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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