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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the genuinely useful 'why' — the current board is snapshotted as a new revision first, so the restore is reversible. It does not mention the async job lifecycle directly, though the wait_s schema field covers that.

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 filler, and the action plus its source-of-input is front-loaded before the reversibility note. 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 non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, where the input comes from, and the undo path. The only gap is no differentiation from restore_design, which matters given the sibling list.

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 bare 'revision' integer has no schema description; the description compensates by telling the agent where the revision value comes from (list_board_revisions). design_id and wait_s are already well documented in the schema, so the description adds value on exactly the gap.

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 ('Put the board and its rules back as they were in a revision'), and names the sibling that supplies the revision id (list_board_revisions). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling restore_design, which is the one nearby tool an agent might confuse it with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for the required 'revision' argument by pointing at list_board_revisions, and explains the safety net that makes the operation reasonable to call. It never states when not to use it or how it differs from restore_design, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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