restore_post_version

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only write but not destructive, and the description explains why: 'The current text is saved to history first.' That safety mechanism and the conditional target (variant vs main post) are real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits any permission or error behavior.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the two important conditions (target location, history backup) packed into parentheticals. No wasted words, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcomes: where the restored text lands and what happens to the current text. The main gap is disambiguation from restore_script_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 already documents session, version, and platform thoroughly. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Put an old version back') and resource (post version), and clarifies the destination logic (variant if it exists, else the main post). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling restore_script_version, which is the natural confusion point.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., version must come from post_history), and no mention of the sibling restore_script_version to disambiguate. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'version id from the history list' schema note.

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