restore_source_version

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

The description lacks behavioral details. Since no annotations are provided, the description should convey that restoring a source version is a destructive action that overwrites the current source, may be irreversible, and could require specific permissions. None of this is mentioned, leaving the agent unaware of side effects.

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 concise sentence, which is front-loaded and efficient. However, extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it barely adequate. It is concise but not optimally informative for an agent.

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's complexity (a potentially destructive restore operation) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the return value (e.g., success message or error) and any constraints on the version (e.g., cannot restore beyond certain point). Current text is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Both parameters (project_id, version_id) have no descriptions in the input schema (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify their meaning or where to obtain them. For example, it could indicate that version_id comes from get_source_versions. The absence leaves the agent guessing about proper values.

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 project source to a previous version' clearly states the action (restore) and the resource (project source to a prior version). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_source_versions' (list versions) and 'deploy_project' (deploy current source), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool (e.g., before deployment after a faulty update) or when not to use it (e.g., if the project is in draft state). There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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