person_revision_restore

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: it snapshots the current card before overwriting and restores the card plus its synthesized_at, and archive state is untouched. However, the claim 'it is never destructive' sits in tension with the declared destructiveHint=true; it is defensible only because the snapshot makes the prior state recoverable, and the description does plainly state that the card is written.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the action is front-loaded before the safety mechanism and the scope boundary. Every clause (revision source, snapshot, archive invariance) carries information an agent needs.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the safety mechanism, and a scope boundary. It stops short of addressing failure modes (unknown or mismatched revision_id) or the return payload, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 slug format and revision_id's origin in person_history are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the revision provenance but adds no new syntax, constraints, or edge cases (e.g. what a revision_id from a different person does). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it puts a person card back to a revision, explicitly sourcing that revision from the sibling tool person_history. It also carves out scope against a near-neighbour by stating 'Archive state is unchanged', which separates it from person_restore, though it never names that sibling directly.

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: the agent can infer this is for reverting a card to a prior version, and the archive-state clause hints at a boundary condition. There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing against person_restore or person_write, so the agent must infer the selection rule.

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