sb_page_version

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: writes are dry runs by default, and restore actually rewrites the draft. It does not say whether a restore is itself reversible, how autosave history interacts with named versions, or what permissions are required.

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?

The scope statement is front-loaded and the per-action detail is packed into one dense sentence with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point that the quoted action names plus braces require careful parsing, but nothing is 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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description covers the action semantics, the recovery scoping, and the dry-run safety default. Missing are site_id behavior and any notion of what list returns (ordering, limits), which an agent would need for real use.

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 14%, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it binds label to save, version_id/history_id to restore, and explains the dry_run default. The one gap is site_id, which is neither described in the schema nor mentioned here; page_id is the only parameter documented by the schema itself.

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 first sentence names the resource precisely ('A page's platform recovery points, everyone's edits included') and distinguishes it from the closest sibling by explicitly noting that sb_undo covers a different scope. Each action is then given a concrete verb and object (list = named versions/autosave history, save = snapshot the draft, restore = put the draft back), so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It routes the agent away from sb_undo with an explicit scope boundary and clarifies which action to pick for each intent (browse vs snapshot vs roll back). It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites, e.g. whether restore requires a prior list call or whether saving is allowed on published pages.

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