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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial traits beyond them: what is preserved (URL, access policy, recipients, tracking), the optimistic-concurrency requirement on expectedRevision, and that no notification email is sent. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then side-effect preservation, then the concurrency precondition and email behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description covers action, preserved state, concurrency safety and notification behavior well. It is only slightly short of complete because identifier semantics and any permission/ownership requirements beyond 'owned' remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for three required params. It explains expectedRevision ('current expectedRevision to prevent overwriting newer changes') but leaves id (page vs revision identifier) and revision (which revision is restored) to inference from 'owned page' and 'retained content'.

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 ('Restore retained content as a new revision of an owned page'), which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings get_revision and list_revisions. Scope limitations ('owned page', 'retained content') are included, so an agent knows this is not a generic revision read.

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?

Gives clear context for use: restoring retained content, and the prerequisite that the current expectedRevision is required to avoid clobbering newer changes. It does not name alternative tools (get_revision, list_revisions) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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