Restore page version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key safety behavior: the current state is preserved as a new history entry, indicating the operation is non-destructive. However, it does not mention permission requirements or rate limits.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the second adds the critical preservation detail.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key side effect, but given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations, it omits usage guidelines and parameter context, leaving it somewhat incomplete.

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?

The description does not add meaning to the parameters. The input schema already describes versionId as 'Version to restore, from get_page_history', but pageId lacks description and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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?

One sentence clearly states the action: restoring a page to a previous version from history. The verb 'restore' and resource 'page' are specific, and it implicitly distinguishes from read-only sibling tools like get_page_version and get_page_history.

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 description implies usage (for restoring versions) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It would benefit from a note that read-only alternatives exist.

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