restore_flow_version

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

Despite no annotations, description reveals critical traits: snapshots current draft (undoable), only affects draft not live version. Full disclosure of side effects.

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 focused sentences: action, parameter nuance, scope and undoability. No redundant or missing information.

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?

Description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and behavior for a 3-param, no-output-schema tool. Could mention expectedVersion concurrency handling, but not essential.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by clarifying versionId source (list_flow_versions) and differentiating from checkpoint numbers. Schema already covers parameters; description enhances understanding.

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?

Clearly states the verb (roll back), resource (flow draft), and distinguishes versionId from checkpoint number. Differentiates from sibling tools like restore_flow by focusing on draft version.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use versionId from list_flow_versions, not checkpoint number. Implicitly guides when to use (draft rollback) but no explicit comparison to restore_flow or other alternatives.

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