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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context: the custom HTML/CSS stops being displayed immediately and is preserved as a draft, which tells an agent both what is lost and that recovery is possible. It stops short of stating permissions or what the call returns, but the added value over the annotations is genuine.

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 short sentences that front-load the action; the second sentence's passive phrasing ('stops being shown at once') is slightly awkward but carries the important draft-retention fact without padding.

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 destructive, idempotent single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state change and the recovery path (saved draft), which is the crucial information. It lacks any note about side effects on published pages or required permissions, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that product_id is the site uuid from list_products. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable at this coverage level but no better than baseline.

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?

It names a concrete action (reverting to the 'simple form') on a scoped resource (a site), but 'simple form' is unexplained domain jargon, and with siblings like save_form, publish_form, set_form_fields and check_form the description never distinguishes this revert from ordinary form editing/publishing.

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?

The condition for use is only implied — you gather that this applies when the site is currently showing its own HTML/CSS — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as editing fields via set_form_fields instead.

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