Restaurează o versiune

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the restored version returns as a draft, the current version is preserved, and a deleted item may also be brought back. These details clarify the non-destructive nature of the operation, which is especially valuable given the annotations only mark the operation as not read-only and not destructive.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail. It avoids redundancy and fits the tool's simple scope well.

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 tool with three fully documented required parameters and no nested objects, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: it clarifies the restore behavior, the draft state, and the preservation of the current version. The lack of explicit return-value details is a minor gap, but the schema and description together cover what the agent needs to know before calling.

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 input schema already documents all three required parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Aduce înapoi o versiune' (brings back a version) and adds that it can also restore a deleted item. It further distinguishes the operation from publishing by noting the restored version 'Revine ca ciornă', making the purpose clear and unique among siblings.

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: to restore a previous version as a draft for review. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives, even though the sibling list includes related actions like publare, listare, and publicare.

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