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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing that the operation appends an immutable history entry and neither erases edits nor changes signatures — valuable non-destructive semantics for a revert. It omits idempotency/retry behavior for request_id and any concurrency failure mode on revision mismatch.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the important side-effect caveat. No 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?

No output schema, minimal annotations, and low schema coverage, so the description carries most of the burden. It covers the operation's semantics well but under-explains request_id usage, contributor auth context, and draft scoping.

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 17% across 6 params, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for reason, expected_revision_id, and the restore target, but leaves request_id, contributor_key, and draft_id entirely to the sparse schema.

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: restore an earlier text in the same draft. This distinguishes it from edit_agreement (forward edit) and read_agreement_history (read), though it does not name those siblings 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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, no comparison to alternatives like edit_agreement. The phrase 'with a reason and expected current revision' describes inputs rather than guiding selection.

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