BotUyo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the current config is automatically saved as a new snapshot before restoring, enabling undo capability. It also mentions role requirements. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and usage guidelines in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, behavioral traits (auto-snapshot, undo), and prerequisites. It could improve by detailing the response or error cases, but it's adequate given the context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (agentId and version). The description adds minimal value by referencing list_agent_versions for the version parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema.

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 specific action ('restore an agent to a previous version') and resource ('agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like update_agent or create_agent by focusing on version rollback. It explicitly mentions 'rollback' to reinforce the purpose.

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: use list_agent_versions first to see available versions, and specifies required roles (owner, admin, or developer). It implies when to use (for rollback) and references a sibling tool for prerequisites.

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