Restore an earlier version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds valuable nuance: current content is not lost but becomes a history entry, while the live page is replaced. It also discloses the confirmation-token requirement, which is not visible in annotations. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a crucial safety nuance and the required token. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and available annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and effect. The only minor gap is that it doesn't outline the two-step confirmation flow, but the parameter schema already explains that omitting confirm_token returns a token. For a tool with no output schema and three simple parameters, the description is sufficiently complete when combined with the schema.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the confirmation token's purpose and workflow. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond stating that a confirmation token is required, which is already present in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 specific action and resource: rolls a page back to a stored version, replacing the live page. It adds meaningful detail beyond the title by explaining that current content is preserved as a history entry, which distinguishes this from update_page or delete_page. The verb 'rolls back' and the explicit 'live page is replaced' remove ambiguity about the operation's effect.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you want to return a page to a prior version. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as update_page, get_page_version, or purge_page_history, nor does it state when not to use it. The confirmation token requirement is a procedural detail, not an alternative-selection guideline.

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