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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds real context beyond them: the call is 'FREE' (cost), history is preserved (why destructiveHint is false), and optimistic concurrency is enforced via expectedRevision. The retry guidance via requestId effectively explains an idempotency-key mechanism. No import/mutation details beyond this, but strong added value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the cost indicator and the core action, with no filler. Every clause (cost, history-preservation, concurrency, retry) carries distinct 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 required-4-parameter mutation with no output schema and uninformative annotations, the description covers cost, concurrency and retry but omits what `revision` selects, what happens on an expectedRevision mismatch, and any error semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partially does: expectedRevision is clarified ('the latest expectedRevision') and requestId is given usage intent ('reuse on retry'). mapId and, importantly, the distinction between `revision` (target) and `expectedRevision` (current head) are left undocumented.

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 ('Restore a saved revision') and adds the key scope nuance that it writes 'as a new revision, preserving history' rather than overwriting. This distinguishes it cleanly from read siblings like list_map_revisions and get_map. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 conditional guidance ('Pass the latest expectedRevision', 'reuse requestId on retry'), which is useful operational context. However it never says when to choose this tool over siblings such as commit_map_draft or prepare_map_draft, and gives no preconditions (e.g., that the target revision must exist). Usage is implied rather than framed.

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