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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the actual state transition (the restored version becomes the current draft and is re-published live) and a billing caveat about no charge while hosting is paid. It still leaves implicit that any existing draft content is overwritten, which is the main destructive consequence.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the effect stated first and a parenthetical billing clarification that earns its place. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the definition covers the what and the state outcome but omits what is lost (existing draft), permission/plan prerequisites beyond the hosting note, and how to discover valid version identifiers. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%: "site" is documented in the schema, while "version" is only constrained as an integer ≥ 1. The description adds meaning by framing version as an earlier published version identifier, but gives no format, ordering, or retrieval guidance, so it only partially compensates.

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?

"Restore an earlier published version: it becomes the draft and goes live again" states a specific verb (restore) and resource (published site version) plus the resulting state change, which is far more informative than the title "Restore a version." It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like publish_site or list_versions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase "an earlier published version" implies the precondition that such a version exists, but the description never says where to obtain version numbers (list_versions) or when to prefer rollback over publish_site/unpublish_site. Usage is inferable, not guided.

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