figure_library_plan_restore_releaseGenerate a read-only lifecycle plan to restore a figure release without changing files or pointers. Preview restore steps by template and release ID before committing.
Create a read-only lifecycle plan. No files or pointers are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| releaseId | Yes | ||
| templateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds specificity with 'No files or pointers are changed', which goes beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint by clarifying the exact impact. This is useful context for the agent, though it doesn't cover all behavioral aspects like idempotency.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The purpose and safety guarantee are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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 planning tool, the description covers the core purpose and safety, but does not explain what the plan entails or how it relates to the apply counterpart. Given no output schema, the agent might wonder about return values or next steps.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention parameters. Neither releaseId nor templateId are explained beyond their names. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 verb 'Create' with resource 'read-only lifecycle plan' is specific. The read-only aspect clearly distinguishes it from apply tools like figure_library_apply_restore_release.
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 provides clear context that this is a planning step (read-only, no changes), implying it should be used before applying. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.