Restore Version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important non-destructive trait: the restore creates a new version rather than overwriting history. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or failure behavior such as what happens when expected_version does not match.

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?

A single sentence with a clear action, object, and outcome. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words.

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?

Although an output schema exists so return values need not be described, the description is incomplete for a mutating operation with three required parameters and no annotations. The critical semantics of expected_version, plus any concurrency or failure behavior, are missing.

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 compensate. It gives some meaning to 'version' as the historical snapshot to restore, but it does not explain project_id and especially expected_version, whose purpose is non-obvious and which is required.

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 a specific action ('Restore a historical snapshot as a new version') and a key behavioral guarantee ('retaining the complete history'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_versions, update_model, and finalize_model without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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