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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the key side effect and safety property: the current board is snapshotted as a new revision first, so the mutation is reversible — consistent with destructiveHint=false. It does not mention permissions, concurrency with running jobs (wait_s/get_board_job), or failure behavior on an invalid revision, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the undo guarantee immediately after. Nothing repeated from the schema or title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes and how to revert it, which is the crucial gap. The asynchronous job semantics are delegated to the wait_s schema description, which is reasonable, though the description could have flagged that this may return a running job to follow with get_board_job.

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 67% and the undocumented parameters carry meaningful context: wait_s has a rich inline description and design_id identifies its origin. The description only adds the provenance hint that `revision` comes from list_board_revisions; it says nothing about valid revision values, wait_s semantics, or what the returned job status means.

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 plus scope: put the board AND its rules back to a state from a named revision. It also names the source tool (list_board_revisions), which anchors the operation. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling restore_design, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this.

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 revision argument must come from list_board_revisions, which suggests a list-then-restore workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over restore_design or other repair/restore siblings, and no stated preconditions (e.g., board must be idle, no job running).

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