restore_deleted_persona_version

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

Without annotations, the description attempts to describe behavior: it only makes the row visible/restorable again and does not change the current draft. However, it omits details like auth requirements, side effects on other versions, or error conditions.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The most critical information (undo deletion, contrast with sibling, behavioral note) is front-loaded and concise.

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 simple restore operation on a version, the description covers the action and key behavioral differences from a similar tool. No output schema exists, but the tool likely returns void or a simple success indicator. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., version must be in deleted state) but overall adequate.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no new parameter info beyond the schema. The note about 'Takes no version check' is behavioral, not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: undoing delete_persona_version by bringing a removed version row back into history. It distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_persona_version by clarifying that 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 explicitly contrasts with restore_persona_version ('unlike restore_persona_version'), providing a clear when-not-to-use scenario. It also notes that no version check is taken, which hints at a simpler operation, but lacks an explicit 'when to use this' statement.

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