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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the restore is additive, preserving the old revision as a new revision, which reassures the agent that history is not destroyed. It stops short of documenting permissions, effects on the current working copy, or repeat-call behavior.

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 that conveys the action and its side effect with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's semantics but leaves key gaps: which revision identifier the new revision receives, whether the script must be unpublished/not playing, and what to do with undocumented identifiers. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.

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 coverage is only 33% — scriptId and projectId have no descriptions at all, and the description does not explain them or clarify the version identifier (revision number vs. internal id). The only parameter insight, that version is the revision to restore, is already in the schema, so the description barely compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (restore) plus a resource (a script to a past revision) and even explains the mechanism: the revision's commands become a new revision. This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_script_revision and list_script_revisions, though it never names them 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?

Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is the rollback tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that you should first call list_script_revisions/get_script_revision to obtain a valid version, and no comparison against alternatives like update_script or duplicate_script.

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