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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the current state is snapshotted first, making the restore itself reversible; the tool writes back to whichever store the snapshot holds (Elementor data vs post_content); and it returns specific refusal/no-op outcomes. This is the kind of undo/implication detail annotations cannot convey.

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 action verb and resource, then layered with the write target, safety behavior, required workflow, and failure modes in dense, non-redundant sentences. Every clause carries distinct operational information with 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly covers return semantics ('not_restorable', 'no_op') and what the dry run reports (kind, size, capture time). Combined with the mandatory dry-run-first guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by mandating the dry_run ordering discipline and confirming revision_id's origin in wp_list_snapshots, which is genuine workflow value.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource (ROLLBACK a page to a captured pre-write snapshot) and names the sibling that produces the input (wp_list_snapshots). An agent can immediately distinguish this restore/write operation from read-only siblings like wp_list_snapshots, get_snapshot_diff, and wp_get_page.

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 an explicit operating procedure ('ALWAYS run dry_run=true first... then dry_run=false to write') and names the prerequisite source (wp_list_snapshots). It also states when the call fails ('not_restorable' for skipped snapshots) and when it's a no-op, so an agent knows both the happy path and the guard conditions.

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