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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds real context beyond them: default behavior is a preview with nothing sent, the live gate and address are untouched, the operation is free, and a dropped write reply must be reconciled rather than blindly retried. This is exactly the behavioral detail a mutating tool needs.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its non-effects, then the safety gating, then the recovery rule. No sentence is filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description supplies the safety profile, the dry-run default, the approval gate, and the failure-recovery path an agent needs before invoking it.

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 100% and the schema descriptions already explain confirm gating, the uuid version_id origin, and the if_unchanged revision semantics. The description largely restates those (owner approval for confirm, if_unchanged as the displayed revision) without adding format or edge-case meaning, so baseline 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 (Restore) and resource (a selected History version) with explicit scope constraints: it does not change the live gate or address. The parenthetical pointer to soclo_page_versions makes the source of version_id unambiguous, separating it from sibling page-mutation tools.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: dry-run by default, confirm:true only after owner approval, and reconciliation via soclo_page_get and soclo_page_versions before retrying after a lost write reply. Named alternatives and preconditions leave nothing to inference.

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