restore_file_version

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the rest of the burden and does so well: it discloses the read-then-write mechanism, the default behavior when version_id is omitted, and the destructive nature of overwriting current content via the undo-point tip. Auth requirements and exact return shape remain unstated.

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 tight sentences plus a short tip, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the parameter default and the precautionary advice. No filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the mechanism, the default, and the safety tip. Only the response/return behavior is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the version_id omission behavior but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('roll a CMS file back to a saved version') and explains the mechanism ('reads the version's content and writes it back'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like save_file_version and get_file_versions, which it names.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: omitting version_id restores the latest snapshot, and it advises calling save_file_version first to create an undo point. It stops short of explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, but the context and precaution are clear.

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