Вернуть редакцию

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: history is not rewritten and a new revision is layered on top, and the bot immediately behaves per the restored version if the scenario is live. Since annotations already cover safety, this extra context justifies a high score.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds key behavioral nuance, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 100% schema coverage and annotations providing safety context, the description adequately rounds out the tool by explaining side effects. It lacks only an explicit return-value description, but this is minor for a mutation tool.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 the tool restores a scenario graph to a selected revision, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flows_save, flows_publish, and flows_versions by conveying the restore action.

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 behavior is described (new revision, immediate effect), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly stated.

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