Restore a revision

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

Annotations already convey non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the restore is recorded as a new revision, so the operation can be undone. It also discloses the dry-run preview capability. This is good additional transparency without contradicting the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first establishes the core behavior, the second adds the critical non-destructive and undoable nature, and the third gives concrete parameter guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 output schema, annotations, and full parameter descriptions, the tool description covers purpose, safety, cross-entity restoration, and dry-run usage. It does not explicitly walk through every addressing mode, but the schema already handles that detail. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for into_target_id and dry_run with a concrete restoration scenario. It does not explain the revision_id vs. seq addressing modes, but the schema descriptions already cover those distinctions, so this is sufficient.

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 a specific verb and resource: roll an entity back to a saved revision by re-applying its snapshot. It also distinguishes the tool from destructive operations by noting nothing is deleted. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against the closely related sibling undo_last_change, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides useful context for when to use into_target_id and recommends dry_run=True first. It implies the restore workflow and even mentions undoing the undo, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like undo_last_change or list_revisions. The guidance is helpful but not explicit about exclusions.

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