restore_pipeline_version

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: finalizing the previous draft with an incremented version number, and that the output is automatically stored in the object store. However, it does not explain potential irreversibility (finalization may be destructive) or required permissions. The side effects are mentioned but not thoroughly explored.

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 verbose but includes irrelevant and incorrect examples (e.g., 'data', 'threshold' parameters) and a repetitive explanation about object references. The core purpose and side effects are front-loaded, but the extraneous content harms conciseness. Every sentence does not earn its place.

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?

The tool modifies state and returns an object store reference, but the description does not cover edge cases (e.g., what if no previous draft exists? what if version is already a draft?). With no output schema, the return format is only partially described ('formatted preview'), lacking details. The incorrect examples further reduce completeness.

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 fully explain parameters. It clarifies version_id as a UUID and pipeline_name as the name, but the examples are grossly incorrect, suggesting parameters 'data' and 'threshold' that do not exist in the schema. This undermines the parameter description and could mislead an agent.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool restores a non-draft pipeline version to be editable as a new draft with side effects. However, the examples that follow are contradictory, using parameters 'data' and 'threshold' that do not match the actual schema, which confuses the intended purpose. The verb 'restore' and resource 'pipeline version' are specific, but the incorrect examples lower clarity.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_pipeline_version. It lacks any guidance on prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the version is non-draft) or when not to use it. The sibling tools include patch_pipeline_version for editing drafts, but no comparison is provided, leaving an agent without context for selection.

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