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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description explains that the operation does not erase history but appends a new revision attributed to the user, and that the revert can itself be undone. It also details the expected_lock_version guard to prevent clobbering.

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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) with front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the effect (appends new revision, not destructive to history), mentions undoability, and covers the lock version guard. It is complete for a mutation tool with moderate complexity.

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?

While schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds meaningful context: it reiterates required parameters, explains the purpose of seq (restore body to that revision), and elaborates on expected_lock_version as a concurrent-edit guard, providing value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool reverts a note's body to an earlier revision, specifies it appends a new revision rather than erasing history, and distinguishes from siblings like notes-update and notes-restore by referencing notes-history for finding the seq.

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 states 'Use only when the user explicitly asks to undo a change' and provides prerequisite steps (find seq via notes-history), giving clear context for when and how to use this tool.

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