restore_deleted_policy_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the operation only makes the row visible/restorable again and does not modify the current draft, which is critical behavioral context. The note about no version check adds further clarity.

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 with two sentences, each packed with useful information. It front-loads the main action and immediately differentiates from a sibling tool, with no wasted words.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and usage. It misses minor details such as potential permissions or return value, but these are not critical for a straightforward restore operation. The contrast with the sibling tool provides good context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'versionId' comes from 'list_deleted_policy_versions', providing contextual origin 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 'undo' and the resource 'delete_policy_version', and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'restore_policy_version' by noting it does not change the current draft. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 tells when to use this tool (to undo a deleted version) and contrasts it with 'restore_policy_version'. It also mentions 'Takes no version check' as a usage hint. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the contrast provides enough guidance.

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