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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the burden is lower, and the description still earns credit by explaining what the mutation actually does: it repoints the live URL rather than mutating stored versions. That materially changes how an agent reasons about reversibility. It does not say what happens to the currently live version or what the response returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and the key semantic caveat, then the prerequisite tool. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what does not change (versions), and where to get the argument, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits the state of the previously live version and any permission requirements, which would be minor additions.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'v2' format example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond pointing at list_versions as the source of valid values.

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 and resource ('Make an earlier version of a page live again') and immediately distinguishes the mechanism from a sibling concept by clarifying that versions are immutable and the live URL is simply repointed. An agent can separate this from publish, save_draft, or discard_draft without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance by naming list_versions as the prerequisite step for discovering the version argument, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over publish or save_draft, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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