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 covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the authentication requirement (ROLA bearer token), the permission gates inherited from edit_page, and the important behavioral detail that the restore is recorded as a new revision rather than overwriting history. It could say more about reversibility or failure modes, but this is solid added value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisites and the pointer to the id source. Every sentence carries information; 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage on both parameters, the description supplies the remaining essentials: auth, gates, and where to obtain the revision id. There is no output schema and no mention of what the call returns, but for a simple restore operation that omission is minor.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including that revisionId comes from get_page_history. The description repeats that provenance but adds no format, syntax, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Make an earlier revision the current page, written as a new revision') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (a new revision is written, not an in-place mutation). Combined with the cross-reference to edit_page and get_page_history, an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear context and prerequisites: a ROLA bearer token is required, the same gates as edit_page apply, and the revision id must be sourced from get_page_history. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus edit_page for small corrections), which keeps it just 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.