restore_lp_version

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the schema: 'This does not touch the published version', which clarifies that the operation is limited to the draft. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does so by clarifying the draft-only scope, though it does not mention reversibility or permissions.

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, front-loaded sentences that immediately state the action, then provide a pointer to the companion tool list_lp_versions, and finally clarify the scope with 'This does not touch the published version'. Every sentence 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, prerequisite for obtaining a valid ID, and the key scope limitation. While it omits details like error conditions or reversibility, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already describes both parameters fully (slug as 'Landing page slug' and versionId as 'Numeric version ID from list_lp_versions to restore as the draft'). The description reinforces the versionId sourcing via list_lp_versions but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Undo/rollback the draft to a prior version' that clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not touch the published version, which is a unique scope not implied by the tool name alone.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by instructing to 'Find valid version IDs via list_lp_versions', which also points to a prerequisite sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly mention situational alternatives or exclusions, though the scope is straightforward.

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