restore_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a valuable behavioral detail: the live row is snapshotted first, making the restore reversible. This goes beyond what the schema shows and helps the agent understand 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main purpose and add a key behavioral note without any fluff. Every word 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operation and a critical behavioral nuance. It does not detail return values or prerequisites, but the provided information is adequate for basic use. Slightly more detail about expected outcomes would make it complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate. It references 'prior snapshot' which implicitly explains versionId, but it does not explicitly define unitId or versionId, though their names are fairly self-explanatory. The lack of explicit parameter explanation holds this to a mid-range score.

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 (revert), the resource (a Properties unit), and the object (a prior snapshot), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like update_unit or list_unit_versions.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to revert to a prior snapshot), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid. This is sufficient given the tool's specific role among siblings.

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