restore_deleted_skill_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'does NOT change the current draft' and 'Takes no version check', which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention other aspects like idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions, leaving moderate gaps.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second clarifies behavioral differences. It is an optimal length for this simple tool.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary function and key behavioral trait (no version check), but lacks details on return value, error handling, or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive, earning a middle score.

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 the input schema already describes the two parameters (id and versionId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., constraints or formats). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 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 starts with 'Undo delete_skill_version — bring a removed version row back into history.' It clearly states the action (restore a deleted version) and the resource (skill version row). It distinguishes from the sibling 'restore_skill_version' by explicitly saying 'This does NOT change the current draft (unlike restore_skill_version)', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use: after delete_skill_version, to bring back a deleted version. It explicitly contrasts with restore_skill_version, indicating which alternative to use for changing the current draft. However, it does not explicitly list all conditions (e.g., when not to use, prerequisites), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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