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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, idempotent, and non-readonly. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the operation is free, the first call changes nothing and reveals which version replaces which, and a confirmation token gates the actual restore. It stops short of explicitly stating that the current site version will be overwritten, but the preview semantics convey the replacement.

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, zero waste, with the cost and the two-step contract front-loaded before the mechanics. Every clause carries information the agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 destructive three-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the critical missing pieces: the source of versionId, the confirmation-token flow, the no-op preview behavior, and the cost. Return-value details are appropriately delegated to the output schema.

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 the burden. It clarifies that versionId comes from iter0_get_design, that designId and versionId must be repeated identically across both calls, and that confirmationToken is only passed on the second call. designId itself is only implicitly defined, keeping this just below a 5.

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 an earlier saved version of the person's site') and names the sibling tool that produces the versionId. An agent can distinguish it from edit, undo, or publish siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly explains the intended use case and the two-step confirmation workflow, including that the first call is a no-op preview. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g., iter0_undo_edit) or when not to use restore, but the context is unambiguous.

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