restore

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions optimistic concurrency (implying expected_revision check), retained audit trail, and explicitly states it does not erase intervening votes or observations. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't detail failure modes or side effects of the concurrency mechanism.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Restore a historical lesson revision') and immediately adds the two most important behavioral qualifiers (optimistic concurrency, audit trail retention) plus a clarifying negative ('Does not erase...'). Every sentence earns 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?

For a mutation tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it does, its concurrency model, and its non-destructive nature. It doesn't explain return values or error conditions, but with no output schema and annotations already covering safety profile, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of explicit parameter-to-purpose mapping, but the concurrency mention helps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optimistic concurrency' which maps to expected_revision, and 'historical lesson revision' maps to revision. However, it doesn't explain the 'id' parameter or 'reason' parameter semantics. The description adds some meaning (concurrency context) but leaves the agent to infer the exact role of each parameter from names alone.

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 the tool's purpose: restoring a historical lesson revision. It uses a specific verb ('restore') and resource ('historical lesson revision'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning optimistic concurrency and audit trail retention. The phrase 'Does not erase intervening votes or observations' further clarifies its non-destructive nature, setting it apart from potentially similar tools like 'forget' or 'dismiss'.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to restore a historical revision while preserving audit trail and not erasing intervening data. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context signals and sibling list suggest alternatives like 'amend' for editing current state or 'forget' for deletion. The description provides enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage, though explicit exclusions would strengthen it.

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