rca_graph_restore_version

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds that version history is preserved and that the restore creates a new snapshot, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation. It could mention potential permissions or undo mechanisms but suffices for most agents.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, behavioral note, requirement, and return format.

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?

Given the destructive nature and the existence of an output schema (described in return), the description covers the core behavior, confirm requirement, and return format. It omits explanation of token and client_id, which are standard across the suite, but remains largely complete for agent decision-making.

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%, meaning the description adds no parameter details. The schema itself provides descriptions for confirm, graph_id, and version_id, but not for token or client_id. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents to infer parameter usage from common patterns.

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 explicitly states 'Restore a causal graph to a specific historical version' and clarifies that it creates a new current state while preserving version history. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rca_graph_create, rca_graph_delete, and rca_graph_list_versions.

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 mentions the require confirm=true and notes that the operation itself is snapshotted, implying irreversibility. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the uniqueness of restore among siblings makes usage fairly obvious.

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