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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the page returns at the same address with full history, and the action is recorded in the moderation log. Role-based authorization is also disclosed. It does not say what happens if the page is already restored (relevant given idempotentHint=false), which is the one remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then permissions and audit behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers effect, permissions, and audit trail, leaving only edge cases (already-restored page, non-idempotent behavior) undocumented.

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 the colony parameter's semantics (colony vs site-wide address, NOT_FOUND behavior) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'same address', so the 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?

Starts with a precise verb+resource ('Undelete a wiki page') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings like colony_delete_wiki_page and colony_revert_wiki_page by specifying the outcome (same address, history preserved). The API endpoint reference adds an unambiguous anchor.

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?

Clearly specifies who may use it: site admins restore any page, colony moderators restore only their colony's pages. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as colony_revert_wiki_page, so an agent must infer that distinction, but the permission context is strong.

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