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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it discloses that the current version and link are untouched, that revoked versions cannot be switched back to, that preview addresses stop working, which versions are skipped (in-review/converting/uploading, dedicated-link-pinned), and the storage-dedup nuance behind how much is actually freed.

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 trigger and the reassurance about the current version before the mechanics, and each sentence carries real information. It is dense and long, but there is little filler to cut.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers the trigger, scope/default, exceptions, irreversibility, side effects on addresses, and even what the receipt reports. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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%; the description compensates by explaining that confirm must be the exact page title (a non-obvious string, clarified in the otherwise-Chinese schema), that omitting up_to_seq revokes everything before the current version, and that up_to_seq is inclusive up to version 1. proposal_id remains unexplained in both places, keeping this short of a 5.

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 (revoke a page's older versions) plus the motivating condition (storage full / quota_exceeded). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list_versions, preview_version, and delete_proposal.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use this when storage is full (quota_exceeded)') and prerequisites ('check which versions go with list_versions first, and confirm with the user'). It does not contrast against an alternative for reclaiming storage, e.g. deleting a whole proposal, so the routing picture is strong but not complete.

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