knowledge_history

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that replace-writes snapshot the displaced body into page_revisions (capped) and that restore snapshots first, making it non-destructive. It does not cover error handling, auth requirements, or rate limits but provides sufficient insight for safe usage.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and efficiently explain all modes. No extraneous information; 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?

The description covers the main functionality but lacks details on output format for listing (what metadata?) and reading (body format?). It also does not specify the result of a restore operation. Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the three usage modes, how parameters combine (e.g., restore requires revision_id), and the behavior of each combination. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states it is for 'Body-revision history for a knowledge page' and details three distinct modes: listing snapshots, reading a snapshot, and restoring. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on revision history and recovery.

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 explains when to use each mode: slug alone for listing, slug+revision_id for reading, and adding restore:true for restoration. It also notes that restore is never destructive, providing guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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