Undelete Version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Restore a deleted container version' without disclosing any behavioral details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the version isn't deleted, or if it affects live/container state. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or prerequisites.

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 sentence with no fluff. It is extremely concise and front-loads the core action. There is nothing extraneous, so it earns full marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are not required. However, the description lacks essential context for an agent to decide when to use it, such as preconditions (version must be deleted), potential reversibility, or interaction with other version tools. For a mutation action with three required parameters and many sibling tools, this is insufficient guidance.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (account_id, container_id, version_id). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already documents them.

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 verb 'Restore' and the resource 'a deleted container version', which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like delete_version or update_version, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be called after a delete_version operation, or any conditions like the version must exist and be deleted. The agent is left to infer the usage context.

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