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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and destructive, so the description's addition of 'saving that revision's commands as a new revision' adds useful behavioral context about how the restore is implemented. However, it does not clarify what happens to the current revision or draft, potential side effects, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the key behavior is communicated immediately.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description conveys the core behavior but leaves important gaps: parameter meanings, what happens to the current state, and what the agent should expect in return. It is serviceable but not fully self-contained.

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?

Only 'version' has a schema-level description; 'projectId' and 'scriptId' are bare string fields. The description does not explain the purpose or relationship of these parameters, and with 33% schema coverage it is not enough for an agent to confidently populate them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a script to a past revision,' and clarifies the operation is recorded as 'a new revision.' This makes the tool's intent clear and distinguishes it from read-only revision tools like get_script_revision and list_script_revisions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_script, duplicate_script, or get_script_revision. The context is only implied by the word 'restore,' with no exclusions or conditions for selection.

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