restore_profile_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the roll-back action and the snapshot eligibility rule, which is useful. However, it does not state the destructive/replacing consequence of the rollback, permissions, or whether the operation creates a new revision.

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 short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the eligibility caveat in the second sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need elaboration. Still, no annotations are provided and the exact meaning of revision_id is under-specified, making the definition only partially complete for a mutation operation.

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?

The schema only says revision_id is a required integer, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions revision_id explicitly or clarifies whether it identifies the snapshot to restore or the revision being rolled back. This ambiguity is a significant gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Roll a profile document back to a previous snapshot.' It also distinguishes this tool from revision-related siblings by noting that only revisions from update_profile_section carry snapshots, so the scope is clear.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use it for update_profile_section revisions that have snapshots; do not use it for append revisions. It does not name alternative tools, but the eligibility rule is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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