versions_undelete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates the operation type (WRITE) and requirements, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or the state of the version after undeletion. Very limited behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded with the '[WRITE]' indicator and clear verb, followed by essential prerequisites. Every word serves a purpose.

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 write tool with 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on the result of undeletion, error conditions, and any side effects. The agent is left guessing about the exact outcome.

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%, and the description only explains the 'confirm' parameter requirement. The other three parameters (accountId, containerId, containerVersionId) are left without semantic explanation, forcing the agent to rely on naming conventions.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Undelete a previously deleted GTM container version', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like versions_delete and versions_create by the 'Undelete' operation and the '[WRITE]' prefix.

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 mentions prerequisites (GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like versions_delete or versions_publish. The context of undoing a delete is implied but not directly communicated.

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