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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description does add real behavior beyond that: 'serve' moves to the revision (a pointer move, hence idempotent) while 'append' creates a new link carrying its content (non-destructive). It does not say what happens to the current working state when 'serve' moves away from it, which is the main residual risk.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the two modes; nothing is padded. The nested parentheses make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, but there is no wasted wording.

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 3-parameter, non-read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials of what is restored and how. It leaves out what the caller gets back and what happens to the current revision when 'serve' switches away, which are the gaps an agent would most want filled.

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%, so mode, revision and expect_revision are already well documented, including the enum values and the concurrency guard. The description only rephrases the serve/append distinction with 'forward (redo)' and does not add syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description names the resource (a revision) and the action (serving it again), plus the two modes, so the core operation is inferable. But the verb 'serves' is domain jargon rather than a plain statement like 'restore', and it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling `undo` or from `get_history`, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 only implied: 'an earlier or undone revision' hints at when it applies, and the mode parenthetical clarifies the two variants. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer `undo` over `restore_revision`, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of cases where it should not be used.

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