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

Annotations only flag destructive/openWorld/not-readOnly; the description adds timing (live within a minute), no rebuild, that it is recorded as a new 'restored version N', the permission requirement (only the publisher), and that the UiChemy design is unchanged so the next publish reverts it. That is substantial context beyond structured fields.

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-loads the action and outcome, then conditions and caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; minor cost from parenthetical emphasis (ONLINE (PUBLIC)) that slightly clutters the opening.

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 destructive, no-output mutation tool with only two params, the description covers effect, latency, versioning side effect, auth, exclusions, and confirmation protocol. An agent has everything needed to call it responsibly.

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 50% — version is documented while projectId is not. The description compensates for the key parameter by explaining the version number comes from uichemy_site_versions, matching the schema's v3->3 note. projectId remains self-evident but undocumented in prose.

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 precise verb+resource: putting an earlier version of a project's static site back online on the user's own Cloudflare. It explicitly separates itself from uichemy_deploy_to_cloudflare (which re-publishes current design) and from uichemy_site_versions (source of the number).

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 the precondition (get the number from uichemy_site_versions), an explicit 'not for' target (EmDash/CMS sites), a required confirmation step naming version and address, and the follow-up relationship to deploy_to_cloudflare. Little is left to inference.

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