restore_article_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an optimistic-concurrency guard (revision must match), but omits that a restore is a destructive/overwriting mutation, what permissions are required, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though for a mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions the brevity comes at the cost of needed detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. Yet for a restore operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition is missing key context: destructive side effects, permission requirements, and meaningful parameter explanations.

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 must compensate. 'Saved version' loosely maps to backup_id and 'current article revision still matches' hints at expected_revision, but project_id is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb (Restore) and resource (a saved version / article backup), and adds a concurrency condition. It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_article_backup or list_article_backups.

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 usage context by stating the restore only applies when the current revision still matches, which functions as a when-not condition. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., get_article_backup) or explain when to retrieve versus restore a backup.

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