cad_version

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: snapshots are in-memory (not durable), diff uses deepdiff and reports changed/added/removed fields, and restore rolls back the document. This goes beyond the annotation flags, though it does not discuss all side effects or permission 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?

The description is well-structured: a one-line summary, a paragraph explaining each action, and a dedicated 'When not to use' section. However, it repeats the same content in Chinese ('按 action 执行版本快照操作'), which is redundant for an English-language tool description. Still, the structure is clear and information-dense.

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 all four actions, the in-memory nature, and the key differentiators from sibling tools. It also explains the diff output format (changed/added/removed fields). An output schema is present, so return values are likely documented elsewhere. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state the default action (list) or required parameters, but the schema covers those. Overall, this is complete for a multi-action tool.

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% with each parameter having a description in the $defs (e.g., label, author, file_id, version_a/b). The description only provides high-level action semantics ('labeled snapshot', 'diff compares two snapshots') without adding new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save, list, diff or restore document version snapshots.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's four actions and the resource (document version snapshots). It also names sibling tools (cad_file, cad_collab) in the 'When not to use' section, further differentiating purposes.

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 gives explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, naming alternatives: 'For durable file persistence use cad_file (save/export); for collaboration branches use cad_collab (tool=branch).' This is a clear usage distinction and helps the agent choose correctly.

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