ripristina_seo_prodotti

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses destructive overwrite of current texts, the snapshot-rotation rule (the version left behind becomes 'precedente', so rollback is always possible), that never-modified products are left alone, the per-id outcome values, and the side effect of invalidating the site cache.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the version semantics, the overwrite warning, and the return values in a logical order. Density is high, though the version explanation is somewhat verbose and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates all four possible per-id outcomes, so the agent knows exactly what a call returns. Combined with the cache-invalidation note and the irreversibility caveat, nothing needed to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it explains the 'versione' parameter's two accepted values and their semantics thoroughly. 'prodotto_ids' is only implicitly covered ('uno o più prodotti', per-id results), so the id format is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (restore SEO title, meta description and focus keyword for one or more products) and explains the two restore targets, 'base' and 'precedente'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling aggiorna_seo_prodotto, which writes rather than restores.

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?

Explicitly says 'Usalo solo su richiesta dell'utente: sovrascrive i testi attuali', naming the precondition and the risk. It also closes off a plausible alternative ('Non esiste un tool per ridefinire la base: lo fa solo l'utente dalla tab SEO'), removing a dead-end the agent might otherwise explore.

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