rollback_decoration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the current version is archived, that the restored version reappears as a new version number, and that history is never rewritten. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior for missing versions, keeping it short of a 5.

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 key behavioral fact (history is never rewritten) is front-loaded in the second sentence, and there is little waste. The Python docstring :param:/:returns: formatting is slightly boilerplate but conveys information.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the versioning outcome, and the return type ('Dict with the restored decoration'). Only permissions and failure modes are left uncovered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies that 'name' accepts a name or slug and that 'version' is the version number to restore. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare title/type in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Restore an earlier version of a saved decoration'. The resource narrowing ('decoration') implicitly separates it from rollback_design_version and rollback_feature, but the description never names those siblings or the condition that selects this one.

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 'restore an earlier version' framing implies when to call it, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements, no prerequisites, and no routing among the several rollback/restore siblings in the toolset.

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