restoreAgentVersion

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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond what annotations provide: current setup is saved as a backup first, making restore undoable, and deleted knowledge files/integrations cannot be re-linked and will be reported in 'skipped'. This is consistent with the destructiveHint=false annotation and gives the agent clear expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds essential information about backup behavior and skipped items. There is no superfluous content.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey return expectations. It explicitly mentions the 'skipped' field, revealing part of the return structure, but it could better specify the full return format (e.g., success status or restored configuration). However, the key caveats are covered, making it mostly complete for a simple restore operation.

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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for both agent_id and version_number (100% coverage), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action: 'Restore a version onto the live agent.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling version management tools (create, delete, rename, diff) by indicating it applies a saved version to the live agent. The backup detail further clarifies the restore semantics.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like createAgentVersion or diffAgentVersion. The purpose implies usage for reverting to a prior version, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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