Restore a revision

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: 'The current version is itself saved as a revision first, so this is reversible.' This explains the mechanism behind the non-destructive nature, giving agents confidence that the operation is safe and reversible. It goes beyond the basic annotation by explaining the 'how' and 'why'.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential behavioral context. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the key behavior (reversibility) and specifies the core action. It doesn't explicitly mention that the restored revision becomes the new current version or any success/failure conditions, but given the schema's parameter descriptions (which reference list_revisions for revision IDs) and the simple nature of the tool, the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all parameters (id, type, site_id, revision_id) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The schema's descriptions are adequate and include references to list_revisions for revision_id.

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 action: 'Restore a piece of content to an earlier revision.' It clearly identifies the verb (restore) and resource (content to a revision), distinguishing it from siblings like list_revisions (which lists revisions) and update_content (which edits content directly). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_content or list_revisions. It implies usage for reverting to an earlier revision, but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. However, the purpose is self-evident enough that agents can infer the context without confusion.

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