Restore an Elementor snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that the annotations cannot convey: the current tree is automatically snapshotted before the rollback, making the operation undoable. It still omits permission/auth requirements and any failure behavior on an out-of-range index.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the key risk mitigation. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema mutation with a confirmation parameter, the reversibility guarantee is the most important thing and it is present. Missing are the confirm token requirement, where valid indices come from, and what the tool reports on success or an invalid index, leaving real gaps.

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 only 33% (only 'confirm' is documented, as "Must be \"restore\""). The description partially compensates by clarifying that 'index' refers to a snapshot index and that 'post_id' identifies the page being rolled back, which is real added meaning. It does not, however, cover the required confirm='restore' guard or the valid range/derivation of the index.

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 and resource ('roll a page back to a snapshot index'), which clearly separates it from list-style siblings like wp_el_snapshots and read-style siblings like wp_el_get. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or the prerequisite that the index comes from a snapshot listing, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in the way a 5 requires.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says the index must come from wp_el_snapshots, nor does it mention what to do if you want to preview the target state first (wp_el_get). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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