Revert Artifact Version

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

Beyond annotations, the description explains that the operation is a write, not idempotent, and details the state changes: current version becomes 'reverted' (kept for learning signal) and the chosen version becomes current. This adds valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, behavior, and parameter usage without repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers all aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter guidance, and side effects. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance: 'never guess it' and emphasizes that version_id must come from list_artifact_versions. This provides additional clarity beyond the schema description.

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 verb 'Restore' and the resource 'artifact version', and distinguishes from sibling tool list_artifact_versions by specifying the source of version_id.

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 provides clear context on when to use: after obtaining version_id from list_artifact_versions, and never guessing it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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