fluig_dataset_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: flags the operation as a WRITE ('⚠️ ESCRITA') while clarifying it is non-destructive because the current version stays in history, which is the key fact an agent needs before mutating a dataset. It does not mention permission/auth requirements or whether the restore takes effect immediately in prod, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loads the write warning, then the action, then the reversibility guarantee, then the sibling routing — every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential safety context (write, reversible, paired with history/draft_check) and the schema fully documents all four required parameters. Absence of return-value or post-restore state expectations is the only remaining gap.

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%, including a detailed env enum description and a confirm flag explanation, so the baseline is 3. The description only implicitly links 'version' to values obtained from fluig_dataset_history; it adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'ROLLBACK de um dataset para versão anterior', and immediately distinguishes the operation from siblings by naming fluig_dataset_history and fluig_dataset_draft_check as companions. An agent can tell this is the restore path rather than a save/delete/history read without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use fluig_dataset_history to locate the version and fluig_dataset_draft_check alongside the restore. It gives clear usage context but does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. when a draft is unconfirmed or when version equals current), so it falls short of the full when/when-not bar.

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