Restore Previous Local Version

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: session-based project context, no projectId parameter, and the requirement that the project be open. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey, though it does not detail exactly what happens to current uncommitted changes.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage constraints. Each sentence adds necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive restore operation with no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisites, source of the required parameter, and a repository limitation. It does not describe the expected return value or post-restore confirmation, which would make it fully complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by specifying the source of historyId ('from openl_list_project_local_changes response') and clarifying that no projectId parameter exists, reducing ambiguity for the 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 action ('Restore a project to a specified version from its local history') with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like openl_list_project_local_changes by referencing historyId and the local-history 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 provides a concrete prerequisite ('Requires the project to be opened first'), an important exclusion ('not available for repository 'local''), and explains how to obtain the required historyId. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but gives enough context for correct use.

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