restore_revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by promising "preserve all previous revisions," telling the agent the operation is additive rather than destructive. It also discloses the concurrency-protection purpose of the revision parameter, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of describing failure behavior on a stale head or auth requirements.

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?

Three tight clauses with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter disambiguation follows immediately after. Nothing is redundant.

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 no annotation detail on side effects, the description supplies the essentials: what gets created, that history is preserved, and how the two revision-style parameters differ. A note on conflict/error behavior for the concurrency check would make it fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does: it clearly disambiguates revision (current head, for concurrency protection) from restore (the revision to copy), which are otherwise easy to swap. project_id is unaddressed, but its meaning is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (revision), plus the key outcome: the restored revision becomes a new head. The mechanics of restoring vs. the head pointer are explained, so an agent can distinguish it from mutating siblings like edit_regions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any named sibling, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

"Restore a historical or candidate revision" implies the usage context, and naming candidate revisions hints at a comparison workflow (compare_candidates → restore_revision). However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no stated alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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