restore_deleted_output_schema_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool undoes deletion, does not change current draft, and takes no version check. This discloses key behavioral traits, though additional detail about side effects or permissions could be useful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It explains the operation, distinguishes siblings, and notes a key behavior. Minor ambiguity about post-restoration state does not hinder completeness.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's param descriptions (e.g., versionId source from list_deleted...). No additional parameter context is provided.

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 starts with 'Undo delete_output_schema_version — bring a removed version row back into history,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from restore_output_schema_version by noting it does NOT change the current draft, and mentions it takes no version check.

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 explicitly contrasts with restore_output_schema_version, guiding when to use this tool (to make a deleted version visible without affecting the current draft). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context for decision-making.

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