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

Annotations only give the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the restore is itself a new version, so it is undoable the same way, and an edit permission is implied. That is useful disclosure beyond the structured fields, though auth requirements and failure modes remain unstated.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the reversibility caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the key missing piece (undo semantics) and the edit precondition. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around permissions and error behavior.

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% (slug and number both documented in-schema), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('make ... look exactly as it did') and resource (a presentation version), and enumerates the restored scope (slides, blocks, order, title). An agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_version or list_history, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'A presentation you may edit' implies an edit-permission precondition, and the tool's role (reverting to a prior version) is inferable from context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer it over update_presentation/edit_slides, and no exclusions.

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