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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context: it only undoes the single most recent change, requires a paid plan, and operates via the WordPress REST API on the user's site. It still doesn't say whether the undo itself can be re-reversed or what happens when no change exists to undo.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, then the trigger, plan gate, and implementation note. The developer-docs URL is marginal but not wasteful.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and destructiveHint already declared, the description covers purpose, trigger, scope limitation, and entitlement. Missing only failure/return behavior (e.g. what it returns or errors when there is nothing to undo).

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'most recent change' semantics for url and the site-scoping behavior, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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 action ('puts back what a fix_title change replaced') tied to a named sibling tool, plus the exact scope ('most recent change on a page, or most recent change overall'). An agent can distinguish this from fix_title, measure_change, and track_change without opening any 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?

Explicit trigger ('use when the user asks to revert') and a prerequisite ('Starter plan and up'). It does not spell out when NOT to use it (e.g. undoing older/non-most-recent changes is impossible), which is a notable omission for a revert tool.

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