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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the current board is snapshotted as a new revision first, which explains why a board-overwriting operation is annotated non-destructive. It does not add what happens on conflict or failure, hence not a 5.

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, no waste, with the effect on the board front-loaded before the undo guarantee. Every sentence 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 mutating, potentially long-running restore with no output schema, the description covers the state change and the undo path, and the schema's wait_s covers the async follow-up via get_board_job. Missing only edge cases (invalid revision number, permission requirements).

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 67% — wait_s and design_id are documented in the schema, but 'revision' has no description anywhere. The description mentions revisions only as a concept, not as a parameter format (integer id), so it does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (the board and its rules), plus the source of the revision. It cross-references list_board_revisions, so an agent can tell it apart from read-only sibling tools like list_board_revisions without opening a schema.

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?

Clear context: use this with a revision obtained from list_board_revisions. That tells the agent the prerequisite and the source of the required 'revision' argument, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative action (e.g., what to do instead if you just want to inspect a revision).

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