restore_note_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—that the restore creates a new commit—which implies the operation is non-destructive to existing history. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or potential errors, though the commit detail adds valuable transparency beyond the basic mutation.

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 a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter definitions and a return note. No fluff; every component serves a purpose. The structure is 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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on the return value's format, prerequisites, error conditions, and side effects beyond the commit creation. While adequate for a basic call, it could be richer given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 must compensate. It clearly explains note_id as a 'Note UUID string' and version_id as a 'Git commit SHA to restore from', providing format and semantic meaning that the schema lacks. It doesn't include examples or constraints but is sufficient for both parameters.

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 specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('note') with a clarifying parenthetical ('creates new commit') that distinguishes it from other note operations like update_note or get_note_history. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when restoring a note to a previous version) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It also does not provide guidance on how to obtain the version_id (e.g., from get_note_history), leaving usage as implied rather than explicit.

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