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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful scope context (it targets AI changes, and version ids come from get_history), but it never says what is lost — e.g. whether edits made after the target version are discarded — which is the key behavioral question for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary use case and appending the alternate mode. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the two modes and parameter provenance but omits the outcome: what state the page ends in and whether later changes are lost. That gap matters given the destructive annotation and the absence of a return-value schema.

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 both parameters, their defaults, and the "home" option are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that version ids originate from get_history, which is useful but marginal beyond the structured data; 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 (undo) and resource (the latest AI change to a page), plus the alternate mode (revert to before a given version). No sibling tool in the list performs an undo, and the description explicitly points at get_history as the source of version ids, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 a clear when-to-use: reverting the most recent AI change, or returning to a state before a specific version obtained from get_history. It does not state exclusions or caution about when reverting is inappropriate, but the version-provenance guidance is a concrete selection rule.

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