restoreAgentVersion

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that a backup is automatically saved (making restoration undoable) and detailing that deleted knowledge files/integrations cannot be re-linked and are reported in a `skipped` field. This adds critical behavioral context not covered by annotations.

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 plus a tag, front-loading the action and adding essential details about reversibility and limitations. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 description covers the core behavior, side effects, and a field in the response (`skipped`). Without an output schema, it provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when to use the tool, though a bit more detail on the full response structure would improve completeness.

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% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for agent_id and version_number. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 tool restores a version onto the live agent, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listAgentVersions and deleteAgentVersion by describing a distinct action.

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 implies the tool is for reverting an agent to a previous state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as diffAgentVersion or createAgentVersion. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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