blueprint_restore_blueprint_version

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds that the target is the draft and the source is a versioned blueprint, but it does not state whether the current draft is overwritten, whether the version must be released, or what permissions or side effects are involved.

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 short and front-loads the operation before listing the endpoint. The endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the annotations title, but it still helps map the tool to the API path without adding excessive prose.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, it omits important restore semantics such as whether existing draft content is replaced, whether the operation can be undone, and any prerequisites for the specified version.

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 the schema itself carries parameter documentation. The endpoint line reinforces that blueprintId and version are path parameters, but the description adds no format, constraint, or validation details beyond what the schema provides.

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 and target: restoring draft content from a versioned blueprint. It clearly identifies the operation and its source/target, though it does not compare against sibling tools such as blueprint_get_blueprint_version or blueprint_list_blueprint_versions.

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 that this is the restore operation for a blueprint version, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer when restoring is preferable to fetching or creating a version.

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