restore_file_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads version content and writes it back, and the tip about saving the current content first implies the destructive overwrite of current state. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but the provided behavior context is meaningful for a mutating tool.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a useful tip without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior, default parameter behavior, and provides an undo tip. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 'omit version_id' behavior that is already in the schema and adds no new parameter details. It does not enhance the understanding of cms_file_id beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Roll a CMS file back to a saved version'), identifies the resource ('CMS file'), and explains the one-step mechanism ('reads the version's content and writes it back'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like save_file_version and get_file_versions by describing the combined read-write behavior.

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 provides clear context: it explains how to use the tool (with or without version_id) and gives a practical tip about creating an undo point before restoring. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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