list_decoration_preset_versions

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

With no annotations, the description does carry some real behavioral burden: it discloses the sort order (oldest first) and a tier gate ('Requires Kiln Pro'), which tells the agent the call may fail for Free accounts. However, it omits pagination, whether archived/branch versions are included, and what fields a version record contains.

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 single functional sentence is front-loaded and useful, but roughly two-thirds of the description is marketing copy and an upgrade URL that does not help an agent invoke the tool. The tier requirement could be stated in one clause instead of a feature list.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the tier gate, which is the minimum an agent needs. It still lacks pagination/volume expectations and any hint of the returned version structure, which matters given no output schema exists.

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?

Only one parameter (preset_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'One decoration preset' implies the parameter scopes to a single preset, but it never states the expected ID format or how to obtain a valid preset_id (e.g., from list_decoration_presets).

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 clear verb+resource ('List every saved version of one decoration preset') and adds the ordering ('oldest first'). It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_decoration_preset, list_decoration_preset_branches, or the analogous list_design_versions/list_feature_versions, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this versus the other preset-listing and version-listing tools in the sibling set. The only conditional content is a tier/upgrade pitch, not usage guidance.

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