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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the prior answer is restored, but it never explains what happens to the current answer or why the operation is flagged destructive, leaving the key behavioral consequence implicit.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the key action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the 'Policy question' phrasing introduces a terminology mismatch with the tool name that costs a little clarity.

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 carrying the safety profile, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and no output schema, the minimum is met. Still, for a destructive restore operation the description should say what the restore overwrites and how it relates to updateConfigField/hideConfigField.

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% and both UUID parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or relationship detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description gives a concrete action ('Show a hidden Policy question again') on a specific resource, and the restoration of the prior answer is a meaningful detail. However, it uses 'Policy question' rather than the tool's own 'Config Field' vocabulary and never distinguishes itself from siblings like hideConfigField, addConfigField, or updateConfigField.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer it is the inverse of hideConfigField, but nothing in the text confirms that or states any prerequisite (e.g., that the field must currently be hidden).

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