restore_drive_file_version

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: idempotency condition when the requested version is already current and that it does not increment the file version counter. Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description complements these details.

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?

Two sentences with clear, front-loaded purpose and essential idempotency detail. No superfluous words.

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 tool with three required parameters and an output schema, the description explains the core action and key behavioral trait (idempotency). It does not explain how to interpret the version parameter (id vs numeric) but is otherwise sufficient.

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 100% with generic descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal extra info (e.g., 'by version id or numeric version') but does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Restore' and the resource 'an existing Drive file version' with specificity of identifying by version id or numeric version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_drive_file_version or list_drive_file_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 implies usage for reverting to a previous version but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like uploading a new version. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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