restore_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly: it discloses that no snapshot is taken before rollback, version history will not increase, later modifications are lost, the rollback cannot be undone via a new snapshot, and old annotation loc indices may become invalid.

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 dense but well-structured: the core action is bolded and front-loaded, followed by the critical warning, the post-rollback guidance, and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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 destructive version-restore tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the action, the exact behavior regarding version history, data loss, irreversibility, follow-up steps, and the return payload.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains path, index, and session_id. The description adds behavioral context around the index parameter (it comes from list_versions) but does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('直接回退' / directly restore), a clear resource (document version from list_versions), and the exact result ('document is overwritten with that version's content'). It also names sibling tools list_versions and read_structure, making the tool's role distinct from listing or editing.

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 clearly identifies list_versions as the source for the version index and instructs the agent to re-run read_structure after rollback before continuing edits. It warns about data loss and irreversibility, but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like apply_edit or template_replace for non-restore modifications.

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