Roll back a site

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by warning that it changes current contents and advises confirming the user's intended version, which is critical safety context beyond the annotation. It also notes that address and history are preserved, a non-obvious behavioral trait.

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 sentences with zero filler. The action and outcome are front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and what to verify before calling.

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 return value ('Returns the new version identifier') since there is no output schema. It also states prerequisites and safety considerations. Given the tool's complexity and the rich schema/annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds a small extra hint (version_id comes from get_site with versions included) but does not fundamentally exceed schema information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb (restore), resource (artifact version), and outcome (new current version), and explicitly differentiates from sibling operations like publish/update by mentioning 'undo a publication/update'. The distinction is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the user explicitly wants to undo a publication/update') and a prerequisite (get version IDs via get_site). It does not name alternatives to avoid, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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