restore_note_version

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'creates new commit' indicating a mutation, but fails to explain if it overwrites current draft, permissions needed, or whether it's reversible. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences for purpose, clear sections for args and returns. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lacks detail on what 'Restored note' contains (full note object or confirmation). With only two params, it's mostly complete but misses behavioral or return value specifics for practical use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: 'Note UUID string' and 'Git commit SHA to restore from.' This helps but lacks constraints like format validation or sources for version_id, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 note to a previous version and creates a new commit. The verb 'restore' and resource 'note version' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like update_note or get_note_history.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The purpose implies usage for version restoration, but without mentioning exclusions (e.g., not for discarding current changes) or comparing to update_note, it lacks full context for tool selection.

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