Restore version

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond this: the current canvas is preserved in History so the restore is itself reversible, and the steps_back redo semantics. This is exactly the kind of context annotations do not provide.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then when to use it. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Complete enough for a single-parameter tool: purpose, reversibility, and trigger conditions are all covered. A note on failure when no history exists would push it to a 5, but this is solid.

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 baseline is 3, but the description independently clarifies the History/redo interaction that animates steps_back, adding real meaning. It does not restate the numbering definition verbatim, so it lands above baseline.

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 concrete verb+resource ('put an earlier version of the diagram from History back on the canvas') and frames it as an undo. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_diagram, load_diagram, or delete_page.

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 names the triggering conditions: 'Use it when the user asks to undo, revert or go back.' This is direct when-to-use guidance with clear invocation cues.

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