restore_deleted_agent_version

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool only makes the row visible again and does not affect the current draft. It could elaborate on error states or idempotency, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and immediately provides distinguishing 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?

The description explains the core purpose and differentiation, but for a tool with no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what the return value is (e.g., the restored version object) or any side effects. It is adequate but leaves some gap for an AI agent.

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 describes both parameters adequately. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing the source of versionId, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Undo delete_agent_version'), the resource (agent version), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'restore_agent_version' by noting it does not change the current draft.

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 explicitly describes when to use (after delete_agent_version) and contrasts with restore_agent_version. It also mentions 'Takes no version check,' providing context, though it does not list any explicit when-not-to-use alternatives.

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