There is something weird going on with the sky in both versions. In the first, it appears overcooked, with blown highlights, like there was too much Clarity applied. I personally dislike "crunchy" skies... clouds are three-dimmensinal, fluffy, and Clarity tends to flatten that. In second, it appears as if a negative Clarity was applied. There is no way of telling how to process that unless I see/get an unprocessed file.
The increase Clarity in the second version (on the rocks) does not work for me. I generally prefer the slightly muted contrast in the first version. Why? The source of light appears to be up and in front of the rock formation, leaving them in shade, illuminated indirectly by the bright sky above. As such, contrast in shade tends to be naturally muted, less "crunchy." It brings up the concept of believability (as controversial as it might be in itself): human perception expects to see muted contrast in the shade.
Two stones in the very corners, left and right bottom, are distracting. One way to deal with it is to tone them down (by darkening them and reducing contrast).
Composition: it starts nicely, leading the eye from left to right, in a gentle, horizontal s-curve. It creates a sense of depth and leads the eye to... and here we have a problem: it leads it to an empty area, at the intersection of thirds, where usually you would have the most interesting feature. I understand that the vantage point might be forced upon you though. It is not a catastrophic failure either. One can argue that it leads the eye to the sky and clouds -- in which case having them "just right" would be another plus. Another possibility is to get more details in that "empty area," via localized Clarity or additional sharpening perhaps?