Workbooks Restore Workbook Version

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing about behavior beyond the name: it does not say what happens to the current workbook state, whether the overwritten revision becomes recoverable, or what permissions are required. The destructiveHint=false flag may even mislead, since a restore replaces live content.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter operation. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of the missing detail rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a write operation the description omits critical context: the prerequisite for obtaining a version, and the effect on the current workbook. As written, an agent knows the intent but not how to execute it safely.

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 neither parameter is documented in the description. It does not explain what form `version` takes (a raw integer id vs. an index into history) or how it relates to the version history tool, so the agent has no basis for supplying a correct value.

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 (Restore) and resource (a workbook) plus the target state (a previous version), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as workbooks_get_workbook_version_history or workbooks_update_workbook_contents.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the prerequisite step (finding a valid version via workbooks_get_workbook_version_history), and no statement about when to prefer this over simply updating workbook contents. The agent must infer the whole workflow.

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