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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the current version is preserved in history and remains re-restorable, which directly addresses reversibility despite the destructive hint. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the reversibility disclosure is the key behavioral context here.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the trigger condition and precondition, the second delivers the reversibility fact. No filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow position, the key input source, and the reversibility guarantee. It could go slightly further on what a successful restore returns or whether it affects the live site immediately, but the essentials are present.

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 67%, with point_id and only_if_latest documented in the schema. The description reinforces that point_id comes from list-versions ('an earlier version'), adding linkage context, but says nothing about site_id or the only_if_latest flag beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

State a specific verb (restore) and resource (version of a WebTwizz site), and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list-versions by positioning itself as the follow-up action. However, the phrasing leans on the usage context rather than a crisp standalone definition of what restore does to the site.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('after list-versions when the user picks an earlier version') and names the sibling that produces the point_id. The precondition is unambiguous and actionable.

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