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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the result lands as a new commit attributed to the acting user, is live immediately, and never rewrites history, plus that pages deleted since the target commit are resurrected. That is real behavioral value and is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. It leaves out what happens on a stale or invalid sha.

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?

The content is dense and front-loaded, but it is delivered in fragmented, telegraphic sentences ('On one site of the account, named in site.') that read as notes rather than a coherent definition. Nothing is wasted, yet the choppy syntax costs readability without saving much length.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the source of the commit id, the effect on live pages, the history-preserving semantics, and the admin requirement. Only error and conflict behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 50%, with sha undocumented in the schema; the description compensates by explaining that sha refers to a commit drawn from site_pages_history, which is exactly the missing linking information. The site parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description covers the gap precisely where it exists.

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 action (rolling the site folder's files back to a commit) applied to a specific resource, and clarifies it is a forward-moving restore rather than a rewind. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling restore_theme_revision by scoping to the site folder, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'a commit from site_pages_history' tells the agent where the sha must come from, and 'Admins only' states a precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to restore, and no direct pointer to site_pages_history or list_site_pages as the routing path.

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