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

The description explicitly claims 'history stays intact' and says it creates a NEW revision on top of the current head, implying no destructive overwrite. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint: true, which directly conflicts with that claim. The extra details about optimistic concurrency and approval are useful, but the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and core mechanism, then add necessary caveats about concurrency and approval. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, concurrency model, and approval possibility, but it does not describe return values, how approval works, or what happens on a concurrency conflict. It also leaves the destructiveHint contradiction unresolved, which creates uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that currentHeadRevisionId is used for optimistic concurrency, which is not present in the schema field description. Other parameters are already well-covered by the schema.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb (Restore) and resource (historical revision), and explains the key mechanism: creating a NEW revision on top of the current head. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like revision_diff and other scene tools, and the phrase 'history stays intact' sharpens the intended behavior.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (restoring a historical revision while preserving history), and gives an important prerequisite: passing the current head for optimistic concurrency, plus a warning that approval may be required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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