restore_company_version

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that changes are only to the draft and live stays unchanged. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or potential side effects.

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 sentences, 28 words. Every word serves a purpose, front-loaded with the action.

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?

Covers core behavior and parameter hints. Missing return value description and conflict handling details, but adequate for a simple restore 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 value for versionId (UUID source), but expectedVersion is not elaborated beyond the schema's 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 'Roll back' and the resource 'company draft'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it affects only the draft, not the live version.

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 explains that versionId should come from list_company_versions and clarifies the scope (draft vs live). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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