restore_story_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive mutation (likely, given 'restore'), what permissions are required, how it affects the current story state, or what the expected outcome is. Critical behavioral traits like side effects, error conditions, or success indicators are completely absent.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential function, albeit minimally.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral context, parameter details, and output information, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation by an agent.

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 but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving both 'story_id' and 'version_id' entirely undocumented in meaning, format, or source. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 'Restore a story version' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the action (restore) and target (story version), it provides no additional specificity about what restoration entails or how it differs from related tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' or 'get_story_versions'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks meaningful differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., needing existing versions), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' or 'get_story_versions'. The agent receives no contextual cues for appropriate tool selection.

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