restore_doc

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the retained row goes through the normal write path and no rows are deleted, which usefully qualifies what 'destructive' means here. It still doesn't state permission requirements or failure behavior beyond what the schema carries.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the clarifying 'Nothing is deleted' earns its place by tempering the destructive hint. No filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations and a fully documented six-parameter schema, the description covers the essential mechanism. It lacks any note on permissions, partial-failure behavior, or what the caller gets back, but with no output schema and rich annotations those gaps are minor.

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%, so every parameter (including the source-tag allowlist and exchange ordering rule) is already documented in the schema. The description alludes to 'a reason' and 'retained revision' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: writing a retained revision back as the current document. An agent understands the operation immediately, but the description never distinguishes it from siblings like patch_doc, write_doc, or read_doc_history.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanics described (restoring a retained revision), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that also write document content. The agent must infer that this is the revert path rather than a normal write.

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