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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds materially beyond them: the change is live immediately, the current state is snapshotted first so the restore is itself undoable, and a generator rebuild will re-overwrite restored content. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the undo guidance, then scope, then confirm semantics, then the generator caveat. Dense but nearly every clause carries new information; the final IMPORTANT paragraph is long though justified by the risk it prevents.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, reversibility, preview/apply, prerequisite tool, and the generator pitfall. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool safely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it explains version_id (a snapshot from site_versions), path (empty = WHOLE site, non-empty = single file/folder with examples), and confirm (preview vs apply). The 'site' and 'server' parameters remain unexplained, which is the only gap.

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 ('Restores the website (or a single file/folder) from an automatic snapshot') and explicitly ties itself to the sibling tool site_versions that enumerates snapshots, so an agent can distinguish it from site_rebuild, site_versions, and site_edit_file.

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 the use case directly ('this is how you undo an overwritten or lost change'), names the source of valid input (site_versions), and explains the confirm=false preview vs confirm=true apply workflow. It even flags the when-NOT-to-rely-on-it case for generator-built sites.

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