favorite_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 disclose non-obvious behavior: favorites are never dropped from history, and favoriting the same id again renames rather than duplicating. It does not mention permissions, error cases, or what the call returns, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and every sentence adding operational value (id source, rename semantics, how to list favorites). There is no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important preconditions and side effects, including where the id comes from and the rename-on-repeat behavior. The only real gap is that it does not say what the tool returns or confirm the scope of the favorite name.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: id specifically comes from list_history and can be read off the top bar as v{id}. The name parameter is only lightly elaborated beyond the schema's 'in the user's words' wording.

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 ('Keeps a version as a named favorite') and ties it to a concrete id source (list_history), which separates it from siblings like restore_version and list_history. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it (naming a version, id from list_history, v{id} in the top bar) and notes the rename case when favoriting the same id again. It stops short of explicitly excluding restore_version or naming it as the alternative, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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