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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that changes are staged (not applied immediately), that the next deploy requires human approval if removals occur, that sealed values and volume data are not restored, and that this call itself asks no human. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs for a non-read-only, non-destructive staging operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, staging and human-approval behavior, what is not restored, and that no human is asked during the call. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 six-parameter staging tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral traits (staging, human interaction, non-restored items) well. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing against sibling tools like 'discard' or 'review', but no essential calling information 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are well documented in the schema. The description mentions 'undo' but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific action: staging a Saved revision's whole configuration, with an undo variant. It clearly conveys the verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'review' or 'discard'.

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?

It explains the two modes (whole configuration vs. undo only) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and no sibling tools are named for comparison.

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