abx_restore_action_version

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds that the current action state is replaced by the version's state, which is useful context about the effect. It says nothing about what happens to unsaved/current edits, required permissions, or the response, so it adds only moderate value. Note the soft tension: overwriting current state is arguably destructive while destructiveHint=false, but the description does not assert destructiveness, so this is not a contradiction.

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 first two sentences restate the same idea ('restore the action state based on a specified version' vs 'change the current action state to the state specified in the version'), and the trailing PUT path duplicates the annotation title. Content is front-loaded but partially redundant.

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 3-required-param mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core effect but omits practical detail such as the projectId requirement rationale (only in schema) and what the call returns. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 100%, so all three parameters (id, versionId, projectId) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the path semantics and adds no extra meaning, which is exactly the baseline-when-schema-covers case.

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?

Names a specific verb (restore) and resource (action state to a specified version), which is clearly distinct from siblings like abx_create_action_version or abx_release_action_version. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of 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 description implies the use case (roll an action back to a prior version's state) but never states when to choose this over adjacent tools such as abx_release_action_version or abx_get_all_versions, nor any preconditions. Usage must be inferred from the verb.

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