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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing that the current draft is snapshotted first and is recoverable, and that contribute access is required. These are meaningful operational facts an agent needs (mitigated destruction, auth requirement) rather than restatements of the annotation profile.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action, then side effects, then the required next step and permission. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no waste.

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 no output schema and only two well-documented params, the description covers the action, the draft-overwrite side effect and its recoverability, permission requirements, and the publish dependency. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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 pageId and versionNumber are already documented in the schema (including the 'from get_page.versions' hint). The description references 'the chosen version' but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Restore an earlier version of a web part page into the working draft.' The 'web part page' target clearly distinguishes it from sibling restore_document_version, and the 'into the working draft' scope tells the agent exactly what state is affected.

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 names the follow-up action and why: 'Does NOT auto-publish; call publish_page afterward to make it public.' This routes the agent to the correct sibling. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the sequencing guidance is clear and actionable.

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