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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the operation validates before republishing, preserves history (rather than truncating it), and implicitly acquires the edit lease when no token is supplied. That lease side effect is a behavioral fact an agent must know about for a destructive, non-idempotent call. It still doesn't say what happens when validation fails or whether the rollback is reversible.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its outcome front-loaded ahead of the lease caveat. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important safety story (validation, history preserved, lease acquisition) but omits failure behavior and the meaning of the required version parameter. An agent could call it, but might pass the wrong version identifier.

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 coverage is only 33%: leaseToken is documented in the schema and echoed in the description, but version and websiteId carry no explanation in either place, and 'earlier version' doesn't clarify whether version is a sequential number, a version id, or a snapshot index. Adequate but leaves a genuine ambiguity for a required parameter.

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 sequence ('Validates and republishes an earlier version') and the resulting resource state ('as a new head and published version'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from a plain publish. It never names the close siblings websiteSourceCode_head_restore or head_publish, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Roll back to a previous version' plus the rollback framing implies when to use it, and the lease sentence gives a conditional usage rule. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to head_restore/head_publish, which are the obvious alternatives an agent would weigh.

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