fablecut_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the tool is never destructive, that restore first snapshots current state so it can be undone, and that versions are auto-created every 10 minutes plus before an agent's first edit or a set_project rewrite. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the safety claim, then structured as an action list with inline guidance. It is dense and long for one paragraph, but nearly every clause carries actionable information; a bulleted layout would scan better.

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?

A 7-parameter, 6-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema — the description covers action semantics, side effects, defaults, consumers of version ids (fablecut_projects), and the human-visible consequence of restore. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: which parameters belong to which action (save/diff/restore/update signatures), that project defaults to the open one, and that version accepts a number. The 'to' semantics for diff are useful too. It stops short of covering edge cases like 'final' uniqueness enforcement, which the schema mentions.

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 opening clause names the resource precisely (a project's version history, saved copies) and the description then enumerates all six actions with their payloads (list/save/diff/restore/update/delete). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like fablecut_projects or fablecut_set_project without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit triggers are given per action: save 'before big or risky edits, and when the user is happy with a cut', restore 'only when they asked', diff to see what changed. It also states the default (list) and warns that restoring changes what the user sees, which functions as a when-not rule.

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