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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds that the restore is itself a revision and therefore undoable the same way — meaningful context about reversibility and the overwriting of current content that annotations alone do not convey. It does not cover authorization requirements, but the schema's token field handles that.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one behavioral fact an agent needs. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema and a simple three-parameter mutation, the description plus 100% schema coverage and the destructive annotation are close to complete. The only unaddressed point is what happens to the current page content, which is implied but not stated.

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%, with path, token and revision_id all documented in the schema (including the 'from wiki_history' provenance for revision_id). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Put ... back') and resource ('a wiki page') with the mechanism (to a chosen revision), which clearly separates it from save_wiki_page, delete_wiki_page and read_wiki_page. It stops short of naming any sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by 'as one of its revisions had it' plus the note that restoration is itself a revision, which hints at the undo/history workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over undo or save_wiki_page, and gives no prerequisites (e.g. needing a revision_id from wiki_history).

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