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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial context: history is never lost, a revert can itself be reverted, the exact permission model including the locked-page exception, and that it consumes every rate limit as an edit. This is exactly the value-add a description should provide beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then layers semantics, permissions, rate limits, and the recommended companion tool. Every sentence carries information, though the final API-path sentence is somewhat redundant and the text is denser than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description nonetheless supplies the permission model, reversibility guarantee, and rate-limit behavior needed to call this mutation tool responsibly, so nothing material is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents (it does not, for example, clarify that revision_id comes from colony_wiki_history here, though the schema does). It also does not mention the deprecated colony_name alias.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Restore an earlier revision of a wiki page, as a new revision') and clarifies the 'as a new revision' semantics. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling colony_restore_wiki_page (which restores a deleted page) or colony_edit_wiki_page, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would need resolved.

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 operational guidance: review the change first with ``colony_wiki_diff``, and states the authorization condition (anyone who may edit; on a locked page, only a site admin or the colony's moderators). It does not state when NOT to revert, e.g. versus colony_restore_wiki_page or colony_edit_wiki_page, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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