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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating nature is already known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether restoring overwrites current content or creates a new version snapshot, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required. This is the key behavioral question for a restore operation and it is left unanswered, though nothing contradicts 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere rather than being a model of economy.

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?

With only two fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the call mechanics are covered. However, for a mutation with no output schema and weak annotation detail, the description should at minimum explain the consequence of a restore; that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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 both articleId and versionNumber are already documented. The description's phrasing ('to a specific version') merely echoes the schema and adds no format, range, or sourcing detail for versionNumber.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('an article') with the scoping target ('a specific version'). It is clearly a mutation distinct from read siblings like list_article_versions and get_article, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a version number obtained from list_article_versions), and no statement about what happens to the current live content. An agent must infer all selection logic from the name alone.

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