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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the source revision is not modified, the published revision is unaffected until publish, and every unpublished edit in the current draft is left behind — that last point is the real consequence behind destructiveHint=true and it is stated plainly. It does not mention permission requirements or failure modes, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its non-obvious effect, then prerequisites, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information — the mechanism, the immutability guarantees, the data-loss warning, and the routing hint — 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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation guarded by a destructiveHint, the description supplies everything needed: what is created, what is preserved, what is lost, and how to locate the revisionId. No meaningful gap remains for an agent to call it safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both projectId and revisionId are already documented, and the schema even hints at the source ('from get_page_revisions or page.publishedRevisionId'). The description reinforces that provenance but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Revert a page's draft to a previous revision') and immediately clarifies the mechanism — a NEW draft revision is created rather than the old one being restored. It explicitly distinguishes itself from both get_page_revisions and revert_page_revision_to_version, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Names the prerequisite lookup tool ('Use get_page_revisions to find the revision to revert to') with a concrete example, and names the alternative ('use revert_page_revision_to_version instead') together with the exact condition that selects it — undoing only the last few saves of the current draft. When/when-not is fully spelled out.

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