version_management

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists actions (restore, cleanup, comparison) without noting that delete/cleanup destroy versions irreversibly, or that comparison is read-only. No auth or rate limit info.

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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise with no redundancy, though it could include a second sentence for critical details without harming conciseness.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, the meaning of actions like 'cleanup', or how parameters interact (e.g., itemId vs itemPath). Significant gaps for effective use.

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 description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds minimal context by listing action categories (restore, cleanup, comparison), but this is already evident from the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Manage file versions including restore, cleanup, and comparison', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. While it distinguishes from sibling tools (no other tool handles version management), it does not explicitly contrast with related file operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites or context for specific actions like restore or delete.

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