flat_restore_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the most important non-obvious behavior: the restore is non-destructive because the history is maintained and a NEW revision is created rather than the old one being resurrected. It omits permission requirements and what happens to the current head revision 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the outcome ('Desfaz edições') and then the mechanism in parentheses. No wasted words, though the parenthetical slightly buries the key fact that the operation is additive.

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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description explains the mechanism adequately but leaves gaps: what the call returns, whether the score_id scope needs ownership rights, and what the description parameter affects.

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 compensate for all three parameters, but it only implicitly identifies revision_id as the source revision. The score_id and the optional description parameters are never explained in meaning or format.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair: it undoes edits by copying the content of an old revision into a new revision. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from flat_upload_revision or flat_list_revisions, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Desfaz edições' implies the use case (reverting unwanted changes), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance — nothing says when to prefer this over flat_upload_revision or flat_edit_musicxml, and no prerequisites or restrictions are stated.

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