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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail that the earlier version is restored at the same URL, but it doesn't say whether the rollback creates a new version, what happens to the currently live version, or whether permissions are required.

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, zero waste, and the core behavior plus the parameter default are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential behavior and the versionId default. Only side effects on the existing live version 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 must carry the load, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: omitting versionId means go back exactly one version, which the schema's optional flag alone cannot convey. siteId is not explained, but its role is inferable from the tool name.

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 ('make an earlier version live again at the same URL'), which is clearly distinct from sibling site operations like neuron_sites_publish, neuron_sites_update and neuron_sites_delete. It is clear, though it never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'make an earlier version live again' – i.e. use this to revert rather than to edit or publish anew. However there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to neuron_sites_publish/update, and no preconditions stated.

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