restore_deleted_tool_version

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool does not change the current draft, only restores visibility, and requires no version check. This is good transparency, though it could mention potential side effects or prerequisites more explicitly.

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—two sentences—with the most critical information (the core action) front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what the tool does, how it differs from a sibling, and a notable behavioral trait (no version check). It is complete for its complexity class.

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 the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3. It mentions that no version check is needed, which is relevant to the versionId parameter but not a direct semantic enhancement.

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 undoes delete_tool_version by making a removed version row visible again. It also contrasts with restore_tool_version, which modifies the current draft, thereby distinguishing its purpose from a sibling tool.

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 this tool with restore_tool_version, providing guidance on when not to use it. It also notes that no version check is required, implying a simpler usage. However, it does not fully enumerate alternative tools or specify exact conditions for use.

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