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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it warns 'Existing project data is changed,' explains the revision precondition ('at the expected current revision' implies optimistic concurrency that will fail on a stale revision), and flags the idempotency-key requirement. It does not describe what is destroyed in detail, but the added context is solid.

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?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the action, then the input requirements, then the side effect. No wasted words, though the phrasing could be tightened slightly.

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. For a destructive mutation, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: revision precondition, idempotency key, and that project data changes. Only the two undocumented UUID params leave a small gap.

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 only 20% (only projectId is annotated), so the description carries burden. It adds meaning for three of five params: actionId ('from edit history'), expectedRevision ('expected current revision'), and idempotencyKey ('an idempotency key'). projectId and workspaceId remain unexplained in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates.

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: restoring one saved editor action, scoped to the expected current revision. An agent can distinguish this from editor_history_list (which reads history) or timeline_edit_apply, though the description never names 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?

'Requires the action ID from edit history' implicitly points the agent to the history listing tool as the source of the actionId, which is useful. However, it never states when to use undo versus re-applying an edit or reverting via other timeline tools, and gives no prerequisites beyond the inputs themselves.

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