restore_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect: it auto-backups the current state before restoring. However, it does not explicitly state that the current workflow will be overwritten, nor mention permissions, irreversibility, or result behavior beyond that.

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?

One concise sentence with the action and primary target front-loaded. The parenthetical adds a critical behavioral safety note without padding or redundancy.

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 relatively simple three-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the main side-effect concern. It could be more complete by noting that the current workflow is replaced and that the backupId is obtained from list_workflow_backups, but enough is present for a correct call.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the default for autoBackupCurrent. The description's parenthetical about auto-backing up adds context but does not explain parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('a workflow to a previous backup version'), making the operation unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like backup_workflow, list_workflow_backups, and diff_workflow_versions by naming a distinct action.

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 context for use is clear: use this tool when you need to revert a workflow to an older backup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the action is unambiguous and no competing sibling performs the same revert operation.

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