restore_page_version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint false. The description adds specific behavior about preserving the current version as a new entry, providing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It clearly conveys the operation and its effect in a well-structured manner.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers the core behavior. It does not explicitly state that list_page_versions must be called first to obtain a valid versionId, but that is implied by the parameter description, so the context is mostly complete.

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 low (only versionId described, 33%). The description does not compensate by explaining collectiveId or pageId, though they are standard IDs. This leaves ambiguity for an agent.

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 action: restoring a specific historical version of a page. It also explains the effect (current content replaced, current version preserved as new entry), which distinguishes it from restore_page (restoring a trashed page) and list_page_versions.

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 implies the use case (reverting to a past version) and the parameter description for versionId notes it comes from list_page_versions, giving context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like restore_page or mention when not to use it.

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