Restore a cached user rule version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: no network request, enabled state and source URL are preserved, issued personas are untouched, and a later refresh will pick up the latest content. It stops short of describing reversibility of the rollback itself or any auth requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its no-network property. The phrasing of the refresh sentence is mildly awkward but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema covering returns and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (state preservation, persona stability). Only the expected_revision parameter's contract remains undocumented.

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 0% for three required parameters. The description clarifies that content_sha256 must be a previously cached hash from get_user_rule, and rule_id is self-evident, but expected_revision (apparently an optimistic-concurrency guard) is never explained in either the schema or the description.

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 (Restore) and resource (a cached user-rule version), and ties it to a concrete source: 'one of get_user_rule's cached content hashes.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from refresh_user_rule, get_user_rule, and delete_user_rule.

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?

Implies the precondition that you must already hold a cached hash surfaced by get_user_rule, and notes the follow-up behavior for refresh, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus refresh_user_rule or set_user_rule_enabled and states no exclusions or failure conditions.

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