project_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retaining history,' which implies non-destructive behavior to past revisions, but it does not explain side effects on the current state, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 a single sentence, which is short, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. It lacks essential details about parameters and behavior, so the brevity is not appropriate; it sacrifices needed information for conciseness.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must carry a heavy load. It provides only a high-level purpose and omits all operational details, making it inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters (project_id, base_revision, request_id, revision). It mentions 'previous saved revision' and 'NEW revision' but does not map these to the schema fields. The agent is left completely without guidance on what values to provide.

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 action (restore), the resource (a previous saved revision), and the outcome (a new revision retaining history). It distinguishes from other project tools like project_create or project_apply by specifying that a new revision is created rather than overwriting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no information about when project_restore is the appropriate choice compared to project_apply or project_inspect.

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