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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, not open-world). The description adds real behavioral value: the restored content is written as the newest version, history is preserved, and the change is itself reversible — which meaningfully clarifies the non-idempotent annotation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the history/undo consequence second. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and reversibility. It does not state whether restoring a version republishes it to the live help center or what permissions are needed, which are the remaining gaps for an article-mutating tool.

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% and every parameter is documented there (slug with collection, productId, versionId with source tool). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (restore an article to an earlier version), which separates it cleanly from update_article and list_article_versions. The phrasing 'bring an article back to what one of its earlier versions said' is slightly indirect but unambiguous once read.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for reverting content, but the description never says when to prefer restore over update_article, nor that it requires an existing version id from list_article_versions. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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