nucleo-doc-rollback

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

The description adds context the annotations cannot convey: the destructiveHint=true is qualified by "Restore creates a new revision: history is not lost," which tells the agent this is a reversible, additive operation rather than a destructive overwrite. It does not cover permissions, effects on publication state, or any rate limits, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Two short sentences: the action first, then the behavioral guarantee. No filler, no redundancy, and the important caveat is placed immediately after the action statement.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its reversibility. It is silent on permission requirements, what the returned value contains (e.g., the new revision number), and how it interacts with sibling tools for finding a revision id, leaving notable gaps for a write operation.

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?

Only the revision parameter is documented in the schema (50% coverage). The description implicitly characterizes revision as the target of the restore and implies the document is identified, but it adds no explicit meaning for postId, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for moderate coverage is appropriate.

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 ('Restores') and a specific resource ('a previous revision of the document'), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling operations like nucleo-doc-patch or nucleo-doc-revisions. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it wants to revert to an older revision. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of needing a revision number from nucleo-doc-revisions first (that pointer lives only in the schema), and no precondition such as draft vs published state.

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