gorelo_restore_document_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that a prior version becomes current, but omits what happens to the previous current version (preserved in history? overwritten?), permission requirements, and whether the action is reversible. With annotations doing part of the work, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is close to under-specification rather than model concision.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: the agent knows what the call does and that both IDs are required. It leaves out the effects on existing current content and any failure modes (e.g., a versionId not belonging to the document), which an agent would want before mutating document state.

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 both required parameters are described, including the important constraint that versionId must belong to the given document. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource effect: promoting an earlier document version to current. Combined with the name, an agent can distinguish it from gorelo_get_document_version (read) and gorelo_update_document (edit content). It never says the word 'document', but the tool name and required documentId make the scope unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to restore versus update, no prerequisites, no mention of siblings. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the rollback path rather than an editing path.

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