sigma_restore_workbook_version

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'restore' aligns with mutation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as reversibility, effects on current version, or permission requirements. It fails to go beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single efficient sentence that earns its place by stating the core action. It avoids fluff, but it is arguably too sparse, though the conciseness itself is solid.

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 two required parameters and no output schema details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the restore behavior, potential impacts, or how parameters relate, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explain the parameters 'workbook_id' or 'version' beyond their raw schema titles. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but does not, leaving parameter semantics entirely ambiguous.

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 'Restore a workbook to a previous version' clearly identifies the action (restore) and target resource (workbook version), distinguishing it from siblings like get_workbook_version_history. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the name and one-line purpose, with no explicit context or alternative recommendations.

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