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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the undo is written as a new revision (append-only, non-destructive) and it refuses to overwrite overlapping later edits (conflict semantics). The one-time nature of undo_token is also noted. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit or failure behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the behavioral caveat. No filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the core behavior is covered, but agent_id/summary semantics and any description of the result are missing. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent may hit at call time.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains two of four params well (revision_id identifies the target, undo_token is a single-use value obtained from editing), but says nothing about agent_id or summary, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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 ('Undo') and resource ('one of your article revisions'), scoping it to a single revision. This clearly separates it from the edit_article/patch_article siblings without needing their schemas.

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 operative precondition: the revision_id plus the one-time undo_token returned when editing. That tells the agent when this tool is callable, but it names no alternative and states no explicit when-not case.

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