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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the per-case semantics of what undo actually does, plus the 90-day window and the list-instead-of-revert fallback when change_id is absent. It omits auth/permission requirements, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the undo action and its case-by-case effects, followed by the no-argument fallback. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema and annotations already carrying the safety flags, the description covers the key unknowns: what gets changed in each scenario and the listing fallback. Lacking output/permission detail, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 coverage is 50% (site documented, change_id bare). The description compensates for the undocumented change_id by explaining that omitting it triggers a listing mode and that ids come from that listing, which the schema does not convey. It does not specify the id's origin format beyond 'ids', so it is 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 (undo) and the exact resource scope by naming the sibling operations it reverts (content_save, content_upload, content_trash). It then enumerates the three concrete outcomes (edit reverts, create trashes, trash restores), so an agent immediately knows what this does and how it differs from generic undo siblings.

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?

Explains the primary condition (undo a prior content_* operation) and a second mode: omitting change_id lists changes from the last 90 days with their ids. This effectively documents a discovery workflow. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from other undo tools (cf_undo, redirects_undo, seo_fields_undo), but the operation-scoped wording does most of that work.

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