Restore Previous Local Version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, and the description adds context about session-based project context and the limitation regarding the 'local' repository. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details beyond what annotations offer.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes all essential usage information without unnecessary details. Every sentence is meaningful.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or outcome. While the key points are covered, completeness could be improved by stating what the response indicates. However, for a relatively simple destructive tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the source of historyId (from list_project_local_changes) and clarifying the session-based context, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 project to a specified version from local history, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool openl_list_project_local_changes by noting the source of the historyId.

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 explicitly mentions using historyId from openl_list_project_local_changes response, and notes the requirement that the project must be opened first and that it's not available for the 'local' repository. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool.

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