Restore Flow Version

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by naming exactly what is overwritten ('the flow's current descriptor is replaced by the snapshot') and telling the agent how to hedge against data loss. That is precisely the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the destructive consequence plus mitigation immediately after. Every clause carries useful information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential risk and the recommended safeguard. It does not mention permissions or what the call returns, but those are minor against a simple, well-annotated schema.

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% and the schema already documents both id and version_id, including a cross-reference to list_flow_versions. The description adds only the notion that version_id selects a saved snapshot to roll back to, which is marginal 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Roll a flow back to a saved version' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling operations like list_flow_versions, create_flow_version or clone_flow. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 gives concrete when-to-use context plus a prerequisite-style caution: take a version of the current state first if you may want it back. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or direct pointer to create_flow_version by name, but the conditional guidance is actionable.

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