Revert to a version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds the 'Free (no AI)' cost note and clarifies the version source, but does not describe post-revert behavior like whether a new version is created or if the current version is overwritten. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the action; includes only essential usage and cost information with no redundant elaboration.

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 mutation tool with two optional parameters and an explicit either/or rule, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly; however, it does not mention expected return value or post-revert state, but no output schema is present so this is not strictly required.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage); description adds the exclusive 'either version_id or version_number' constraint which is not encoded in schema, clarifying that exactly one of these should be provided.

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?

Uses specific verb 'revert' with resource 'diagram' and references list_versions as source; clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_version and list_versions by its mutating 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?

States 'from list_versions' guiding the prerequisite step and 'Pass either version_id or version_number' specifying parameter usage; doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context implies it is for undo/restore operations.

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