Restore Update Set

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses a meaningful edge case: if the target set has closed in the meantime, the application's Default becomes current and the result reports that. This is exactly the kind of outcome behavior an agent needs before calling a mutating tool. It lacks any statement about authorization requirements or side effects on the closed set.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the fallback condition. Nothing is redundant and the conditional consequence is placed after the primary behavior, which is the right order.

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?

With no output schema and only three well-documented parameters, the description covers the primary action, the fallback path, and that the result reflects which path was taken. It does not describe what is returned when the restore itself fails, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 100% and the schema already explains that update_set is "previous.updateSet from set_current_update_set" and application is "previous.application", including the empty-string sentinel. The description only restates that provenance at a high level, adding no new syntax or interpretation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Put back the working set (application and update set)") and anchors it to the sibling tool set_current_update_set, whose reported "previous" values it consumes. An agent can distinguish restore_update_set from clone_update_set, set_current_update_set, and other update-set siblings without opening any 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?

Usage is clearly implied: this is the undo counterpart to set_current_update_set, so it should be called when the agent wants to revert to the previously active application/update set. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. permissions) are given, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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