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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the current live version is REPLACED and reiterates the confirmation step, which is useful but largely restates what destructiveHint implies; there is no detail on downtime, side effects, or rollback of the revert itself.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the destructive consequence front-loaded ahead of the confirmation advice. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, both parameters are fully documented, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. The description covers the essential risk and confirmation workflow; only tangential detail like post-revert propagation behavior is absent.

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 100%, so version_id is already documented as coming from list_site_deployments, setting the baseline at 3. The description's 'earlier version from its deployment history' meaningfully constrains version_id to the historic deployment set rather than arbitrary builds, adding a small amount of meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Switch the live site back to an earlier version from its deployment history') and disambiguates by naming the dashboard Revert button. This is clearly distinct from redeploy_site and deploy_site among the siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete usage precondition ('confirm with the user first') and points at the source of valid version ids indirectly via the schema reference to list_site_deployments. It lacks an explicit contrast with redeploy_site, which is the nearest alternative, but the context is clear.

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