restore_side_page_version

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

With no annotations, this description carries the full burden and exceeds it: it states the operation 'only changes the DRAFT', explains it 'moves currentVersionId forward to a new version copied from the target', and clarifies 'forward history is never deleted' and the live page is unchanged until publishing. This fully discloses the mutation and permanence characteristics.

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 sentence description front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then delivers workflow and side-effect details in compact, high-signal sentences. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the operation, prerequisites, and post-conditions. The only notable gap is the lack of any indication of return value or error behavior; without an output schema this could be helpful but is not blocking.

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% with each parameter already described. The description adds value by pointing users to list_side_page_versions as the source for versionId and by defining restore semantics (copying target into a new version), reinforcing the meaning beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Restore' and resource 'a side page's draft to a prior version,' clearly stating the tool's exact effect. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_side_page_versions and delete_side_page_version by focusing on draft restoration and explaining that forward history is never deleted.

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?

It instructs to 'Find valid version IDs via list_side_page_versions' and notes the live page is unaffected until 'set_side_page_state({ published: true })', providing a clear retrieval/publish workflow. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use this tool vs delete_side_page_version, but the behavioral distinction is evident.

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