restore_workflow_version

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior: the current draft is snapshotted first (making the operation undoable) and only the draft is changed (live version unaffected until publish approval). This covers key behavioral traits without contradiction.

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 three sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose, then provides clarifying details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, input specifics, undoability, and scope. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to use it.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that versionId is a UUID from list_workflow_versions (not a checkpoint number) and implies expectedVersion is used for optimistic locking. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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: roll a workflow's DRAFT back to an earlier version. It specifies the resource (workflow draft) and distinguishes between versionId and checkpoint number, setting it apart from sibling tools like restore_workflow or restore_agent_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?

The description provides explicit guidance that versionId must come from list_workflow_versions and is NOT the checkpoint number. While it doesn't compare to alternatives like restore_workflow, it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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