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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the mechanism behind destructiveHint=false: the restore is written as a new revision and can itself be undone. It also discloses the authorization requirement (edit access required, read-only accounts blocked) and the return value, none of which the annotations 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety property an agent needs before invoking a mutation. Every sentence carries distinct information: scope, reversibility, prerequisite, access, return.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, reversibility, prerequisite source for revision_no, permission gate, and return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters already document their provenance (id from search_recipes, revision_no from list_history). The description's "Get revision_no from list_history first" restates the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Roll a recipe back to an earlier revision") plus the full scope of fields restored (ingredients, steps, filing, all fields). This clearly separates it from update_recipe (forward edits) and delete_recipe (removal) without needing to open any schema.

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 the agent to list_history as the prerequisite source of revision_no, and states the access condition ("Needs edit access; blocked on read-only accounts"). It does not contrast with update_recipe or explain when a rollback is preferable to a manual edit, so a clear-context-but-no-exclusions score of 4.

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