restore_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses copy-on-write semantics ('a new version is written; history is kept'), telling the agent this is effectively non-destructive rather than an in-place overwrite. It does not cover permissions, whether the current version can be restored, or failure behavior.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the important side effect in a parenthetical. No filler, and nothing essential is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple single-parameter mutation. The remaining gap is sourcing and validating the version argument, which the description leaves entirely to inference.

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% for the single 'version' parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter identifies an 'older version' to promote, but does not say whether it is a version number versus an ID, where to obtain it, or whether the current version is a valid input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: make an older version current again. An agent can tell this apart from list_versions, get, or delete without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name the sibling that lists versions to source the input from, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'make an older version current again' implies the use case (rolling back to a prior state), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of siblings such as list_versions for discovering valid version numbers. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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