restore_deleted_flow_version

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

With no annotations present, the description effectively discloses the key behavioral traits: it undoes deletion, does not affect the current draft, and requires no version check. It clearly tells the agent what the tool does and what it avoids. Slight room for improvement by mentioning potential side effects or return value.

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 extremely concise: three short, well-structured sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose—stating the action, distinguishing from a sibling, and noting a behavioral trait. No unnecessary words or duplication.

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 (an undo operation with two well-described parameters and no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the effect, the distinction from a similar tool, and the lack of version check. An explicit mention of the return value would make it a 5.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'versionId'. The description adds only a minor hint that 'versionId' comes from 'list_deleted_flow_versions'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose is clearly stated: 'Undo delete_flow_version — bring a removed version row back into history.' It directly specifies the action (undo delete) and the resource (deleted flow version), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'restore_flow_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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use this tool by contrasting it with 'restore_flow_version' and noting it only makes the row visible/restorable again. It also mentions 'Takes no version check,' which hints at a distinct use case. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternative tools in detail.

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