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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful scope context (whole site by default versus a named subset of pages), which tells the agent what gets overwritten. It does not disclose whether the restored content goes live immediately, whether a new version is created, or whether the rollback itself can be undone, which is the key remaining behavioral question for a destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the site-versus-page scope appears before the temporal detail. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it carries almost no routing or safety information.

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?

Parameters are fully documented by the schema and the destructive profile by annotations, and there is no output schema to explain. What is missing for a destructive restore is whether the result is published or left as a draft, and how the agent should locate a valid version number, which the description leaves entirely implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains site, pages and to_version. The description adds little beyond it and slightly understates the pages parameter, saying 'one page of it' when the schema accepts up to 500 page names.

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?

The sentence states a concrete verb ('put ... back') and resource ('a site, or one page of it') with a temporal qualifier ('an earlier point'), so an agent can tell it restores prior state rather than merely viewing it. It is clear on its own but never names the sibling that shows versions ('history') or contrasts itself with edit-oriented tools like 'apply_edit' or 'publish'.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says this is the tool for reverting unwanted changes versus editing forward, and no prerequisite is given (e.g. that a version number must first be obtained). The only hint at the workflow, 'from the history,' lives in the schema field for to_version, not in the description.

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