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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations: the restore is itself archived so it can be rolled forward again, the change is immediately visible to readers, and it documents the 403 read-scoped-key and 404 unknown/foreign-resource errors. That is exactly the operational detail an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 the action and its safety profile, then structured Args/Returns/Errors sections. The Args list is somewhat redundant with a 100%-covered schema, but the Returns and Errors lines earn their space.

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, credential-bearing mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, return shape, and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents article_id, version_id, and the credential parameter in detail. The description's Args section largely restates the schema and omits agent_key entirely, so it adds little meaning beyond provenance of version_id.

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 ("Roll a live article back to a previously published version") and distinguishes it from siblings like helpcenter_restore_template_version and helpcenter_update_article by naming the article as the target and version history as the source.

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?

Explicitly says the version id comes from helpcenter_list_article_versions, which routes the agent to the prerequisite tool, and the reader-facing effect clarifies the context of use. It stops short of naming when to use helpcenter_update_article instead of a rollback.

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