knowledge_history

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

Annotations only declare the safety triad (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=false); the description adds genuinely new behavior: replace-writes snapshot the displaced body, retention is newest-kept and capped, and restore snapshots before overwriting so it is recoverable. The 'never destructive' phrasing sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, though the tool does mutate the page body, so the annotation is a conservative default rather than a true conflict. The cap size and listing pagination are left unspecified.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource model, then the mechanism, then the mode matrix — no filler. The parentheticals are dense but each carries real information; the mode sentence is slightly compressed and requires a careful read.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes what each mode returns (metadata-only listing vs full body). Coverage of the mutation path and its reversibility is strong. Remaining gaps are the retention cap value and the absence of any sibling routing, so it is not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the combination semantics (revision_id requires a slug; restore requires revision_id) and by clarifying that the slug-only listing returns metadata while the revision_id read returns a full body.

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 ('Body-revision history for a knowledge page') and frames the tool's role as 'the recovery surface', which separates it from siblings like knowledge_write, knowledge_restore, and memory_history. The snapshot mechanism sentence makes the resource model unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit mode matrix keyed on arguments: slug alone lists metadata, slug + revision_id reads one body, restore: true writes it back. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. use knowledge_write to produce revisions) or state when not to reach for this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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