form_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether restoring overwrites the currently active version, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required. For a mutation that changes which version is live, that omission matters.

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?

Two short lines with the verb+resource front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The second line is a raw HTTP endpoint rather than agent-useful information, which is mildly wasteful but not bloated.

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?

A single-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations that carry the safety profile – so the description doesn't need much. Still, it omits the one thing an agent needs: what state change 'restore' actually produces and how to verify it.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as a UUID path identifier. The description merely repeats '{id}' in the raw HTTP path, adding no new semantics (e.g., whether it must be a historical version rather than the current one), so baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Restore form definition version', which an agent can distinguish from form_get_forms_versions or form_post_forms_versions. However, it doesn't clarify what 'restore' semantically means here (re-activate a prior version as current? undo a deletion? roll the live form back?), leaving the primary effect ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives such as form_get_forms_versions, form_post_forms_versions, or the similarly named blueprint_restore_blueprint_version / abx_restore_action_version. No prerequisites, no state requirements, no exclusions.

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