restore_deleted_prompt_snippet_version

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it only makes the row visible/restorable again, does not affect the current draft, and takes no version check. This is transparent and free of contradictions.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that cover purpose, distinction from sibling, behavior, and parameter hint. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (two required params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the effect and provides a useful param hint. It lacks only a mention of return value or permission requirements, but those are not critical for this straightforward restore operation.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the source of versionId ('from list_deleted_prompt_snippet_versions'), which helps the agent correctly obtain the required UUID. This exceeds the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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_prompt_snippet_version') and the resource ('bring a removed version row back into history'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'restore_prompt_snippet_version' by noting it does not change the current draft, making the purpose precise and unique.

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 clear guidance on when to use (to undo a deletion) and distinguishes when not to use (when you want to change the current draft). It also mentions 'Takes no version check,' implying no prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or contexts beyond the direct sibling.

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