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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: result ordering, the fact that each entry reports its provenance (mcp/ai/editor) and whether it is restorable, and that revisionId switches to a diff view rather than a list view.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the primary list mode comes first, the revisionId mode second, and the prerequisite pointer to restore_site_revision last. The telegraphed shorthand ('+added -removed ~changed') is efficient but borders on cryptic for an unfamiliar agent.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and describing what diff output looks like. Combined with full schema coverage for the six parameters and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly in either mode.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description mainly restates schema content (diff 'prev', path = one file in full); its only genuine addition is framing revisionId as a mode switch, which is useful but modest.

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?

Specific verb+resource: version history of a site, newest first, with an explicit list of returned fields (id, version, action type, actor/provenance, add/remove/change counts, restorability). It also cleanly describes a second mode triggered by revisionId (per-file diffs), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_pages or list_site_files.

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 directs the agent to read history before calling restore_site_revision, and explains the conditional usage of revisionId, diff and path. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a contrast with other listing tools, so it falls just short of the top band.

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