Restore an earlier persona revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state the key side effect: the current revision is kept and a new revision is created, rather than destructive overwrite. It does not cover permissions, limits, or return behavior, but the main behavioral invariant is clear.

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 tight sentences; the core behavior is front-loaded and every phrase adds information. No redundancy or 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection (which revision) and outcome (new revision, append-only). It could mention what the API returns or how errors surface, but the core calling context is adequately complete.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description itself adds little beyond 'past revision,' while the useful pointer to show_persona is in the schema property, not the description.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific operation—restore—and the resource (persona revision). It also distinguishes itself from a plain overwrite by stating the restore is a NEW revision, which separates it from update_persona.

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 append-only explanation implies this is the tool for reverting while preserving history, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over update_persona/show_persona or when not to use it. The 'see show_persona' pointer appears only in the schema, not in usage guidance.

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