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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses the capture mechanism (automatic before-state ahead of every listed write tool), ordering (newest first), retention cap (up to 20 per page), and row payload (revision_id, preceding tool, kind mapping, restorable flag). This is substantive behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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, both front-loaded: identity/update-history first, then capture semantics, then usage. Every clause (tool list, kind mapping, retention limit) conveys information the agent needs; nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return row fields and their meaning (kind = _elementor_data vs post_content markup, restorable flag). Combined with the write-tool trigger list, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% for both required params (site_id, post_id), so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description only implies page scoping via 'a page's' and adds no format or ID-sourcing detail. 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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (a page's pre-write SNAPSHOTS) and immediately glosses the concept as 'the undo history'. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_snapshots and get_snapshot_diff.

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 routes usage: 'Use before wp_restore_snapshot, or to answer "what did you change?"'. It names the downstream tool that consumes this output and gives a concrete intent, so the agent knows both when and why to call it.

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