Restore SharePoint File Version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and provides no details on what happens to the current version, whether a new version is created, permissions required, or reversibility. The Chinese intents merely restate the purpose, adding no behavioral context.

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 concise with one English sentence and a Chinese translation. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and does not waste words, though the Chinese portion is repetitive but justifiably included for multilingual support.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description must provide sufficient context for a mutation tool. It lacks any explanation of versioning behavior, side effects, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the consequences of calling this 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 100% since all three parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 clearly states the tool restores a historical version of a SharePoint document-library file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling drive_restore_version by explicitly mentioning SharePoint document-library context.

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 usage for SharePoint file version restoration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like drive_restore_version. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than clearly directed.

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