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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: instant effect, production-only scope, and plan-based version retention limits. It doesn't cover reversibility of the rollback or auth requirements, but the added value is substantial.

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 action, then provides usage guidance and bulleted constraints. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

Given annotations already cover safety (destructive, openWorld) and schema covers parameters fully, the description completes the picture with when-to-use, prerequisites, and retention limits. No output schema means return values need not be explained, and nothing essential 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 already documents siteId and versionNumber at 100% coverage. The description adds crucial meaning: versions beyond retention limits (Free: 10, Pro: 50, MAX: 200) are pruned and unavailable, directly informing the valid range and availability of versionNumber. This goes beyond schema constraints.

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 (revert/rollback) and resource (live landing page version), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like publish_site, save_page_content, or update_site. An agent can identify the tool's function immediately.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('undo a recent change or restore an earlier version') and gives a prerequisite ('Call get_site first'). Also notes it only affects the production slot and lists retention limits. No explicit when-not or named alternatives beyond get_site, but the context is strong.

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