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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the restore is recursive, how versions are referenced, or whether current state is overwritten. It offers no value beyond the annotations.

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 just two sentences, with the two main modes clearly front-loaded. There is no redundant information or padding.

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?

The description covers the two core modes but lacks details on parameter formats, recursive behavior, error handling, or return values. Given no output schema and minimal annotations, it is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for robust invocation.

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?

Despite the input schema having zero properties, the description introduces and pairs the parameters (path with to_version, prefix with at), which is essential guidance. However, the mismatch between the described parameters and the empty schema could confuse an agent, preventing a perfect score.

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 precisely states the tool restores a single file to a previous version via path+to_version, or a folder to a point in time via prefix+at. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete, write, and edit, and clearly identifies the resource and 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 description provides clear context for both usage modes (file vs folder), making it obvious when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intent is unambiguous.

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