Restore file version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds the useful detail that only the newest snapshot is restored, but does not clarify whether the current file is overwritten without backup or what side effects occur. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

A single sentence that delivers the core behavior and the version selection rule with no wasted words. The most important information ('newest','snapshot','path') is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter destructive restore, the description plus annotations cover basic invocation. However, it does not mention that the operation overwrites the current file, how to restore older snapshots, or when snapshot_restore/file_version would be more appropriate. An output schema exists so return details are less critical, but behavioral context remains thin for a destructive tool.

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%, so the description needed to compensate. It only repeats 'this path' without explaining whether path must be a file, absolute or relative, or how it relates to snapshots. The single required parameter is obvious from the schema, but the description adds little beyond it.

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 clear action ('Restore') and a specific resource ('the newest snapshot recorded for this path'), which separates it from snapshot-level or listing tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the path-scoped 'newest snapshot' wording is specific enough.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_version, snapshot_restore, or git_checkout. The description only says what it does, not when an agent should prefer it or what conditions exclude its use.

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