Revert deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the non-destructive nature is partly covered. The description adds the useful model that a revert produces a new revision rather than rewriting in place, but it omits failure behavior (what happens if expected_revision is stale) and the preview side effect.

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 with zero filler; the core mechanic is front-loaded and the non-destructive guarantee follows immediately. Nothing wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It should at minimum explain expected_revision's concurrency-guard role and what the caller sees on conflict, none of which is stated.

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 only 50%: deck_id and previews are documented, but to_revision and expected_revision have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds nothing about parameters, leaving the crucial optimistic-concurrency semantics of expected_revision entirely unexplained.

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+resource (restore a revision) and the resulting behavior (creates a new revision). An agent can distinguish it from get_history, which only reads history. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it competes with, so it falls just short of 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The agent gets no help deciding between revert_deck vs apply_ops (to change content) or get_history (to inspect revisions), nor any prerequisites for calling it.

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