yaaif_agent_spec_revision_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly guarantees historical releases are never altered and notes that the restored draft is not automatically published. It doesn't explain concurrency or conflict behavior, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence; every phrase earns its place and no filler or restatement.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description needs to cover the required parameters and success/failure semantics. It leaves expected_version's meaning and the operation's return value or conflict behavior to guesswork.

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% and the description does not explain any parameter. spec_id and revision are somewhat inferable, but expected_version is functionally ambiguous (target version vs optimistic concurrency check) and change_summary is not mentioned at all.

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 verb and resource: restore a Scenario release into a new draft. It also clarifies the core invariant ('Historical releases are never altered'), which distinguishes it from publish, compare, or promote siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this when you need a mutable draft from an immutable release, then review and publish it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not conditions, so it stops one step 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.