Restore Page Version

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: the current body is snapshotted first, formatting is preserved exactly, and the title is left untouched. These details directly help an agent understand the mutation's side effects and reversibility.

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 primary action and followed by the most important behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 one-parameter destructive restore tool with a complete schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the key agent concerns: source of the version, formatting fidelity, snapshot safety net, and unchanged title.

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% and the single version_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_page_history. The description reinforces the source but does not add format or selection semantics beyond the schema.

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: put a page body back to a version from list_page_history. It also distinguishes scope by noting formatting is included and the title is not changed, which separates it from broader page or snapshot restoration tools.

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?

Clearly indicates the version source (list_page_history) and names restore_snapshot as the undo path. It implies when to use this rollback tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus restore_page or restore_snapshot.

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