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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value by spelling out that the loss is irreversible, that unpublished Template Editor edits are unrecoverable, and that the live help center is unaffected — the last point is a non-obvious scoping guarantee an agent couldn't derive from annotations.

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?

The destructive outcome and draft-only scope are front-loaded, followed by irreversibility, a usage gate, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place; only the parenthetical about Template Editor edits is slightly padded, so it is efficient without being maximally tight.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating it returns the reset draft's status, alongside the credential requirement being fully handled in the schema. For a two-parameter destructive tool, this covers what an agent needs, with only the sibling distinction left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the etag description in the schema is already detailed about stale_draft refusal. The description's 'refuse if the draft changed since you read it' restates the schema's optimistic-lock semantics in condensed form without adding new syntax or edge-case behavior, so 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?

States a specific verb and scope: discards every unpublished change in the draft and restores the live design, while leaving the live help center untouched. That scopes it apart from publish/restore tools, but it never explicitly separates it from the close sibling helpcenter_discard_staged_changes, so an agent must infer the draft-template vs staged-content distinction.

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 a clear when-to condition: 'Only discard when the customer wants to start over,' which functions as both a trigger and a caution against casual use. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., restore_template_version for rolling back a published template), so the guidance is directional rather than complete.

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