document_restore

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses the exact-revision precondition and implies an ownership/authorization boundary via 'owner-bound', but it never says what happens to existing content, whether the restore is reversible, or how a revision conflict surfaces.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the gating precondition is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters it should be compensating for.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive, 4-parameter operation with no annotation depth and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the parameter contract and failure behavior unaddressed.

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 0% — none of the four required parameters (path, snapshotId, workspaceId, expectedRevision) are documented in the schema. The description only indirectly gestures at expectedRevision via 'current document revision' and at workspaceId via 'owner-bound'; it adds no meaning for path or snapshotId and no format guidance despite strict patterns.

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?

States a specific verb ('Restores') and resource ('owner-bound snapshot'), which separates it from sibling document_snapshot and document_import tools. The scope is clear, though 'owner-bound' is unexplained jargon that an agent may not decode.

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 gives one real precondition: the current document revision must match exactly. That is usable guidance, but there is no explicit when-not clause, no naming of alternatives (e.g. re-snapshotting instead of restoring), and no statement of what to do on mismatch.

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