wikijs_restore_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important preconditions (mutations enabled, permission) and the conditional behavior of the confirm parameter. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., overwriting current content) or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second covers prerequisites and parameter behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites and conditional behavior. It lacks explicit mention of success/failure outcomes or return values, but overall is quite complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the conditional behavior of confirm, but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. No additional semantic information is provided for id or versionId beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states the action 'restore a page to a previous version', specifying the resource and the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wikijs_get_page_version or wikijs_update_page by focusing on restoration. The mention of required permissions and configuration adds specificity.

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?

The description provides clear context: it requires WIKI_MUTATIONS_ENABLED=true and may need manage:pages permission. It also explains when the confirm parameter is enforced. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., using get_page_version for viewing).

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