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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds the two-step mechanism plus the dry_run preview mode, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of disclosing what happens to the current post content (overwrite? reversibility?), permission requirements, or failure behavior.

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 with zero filler; purpose is front-loaded, the mechanism follows, and the optional preview mode is last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers intent, mechanism, and the safe preview path, and annotations carry the safety signals. It lacks notes on reversibility, permissions, or error cases, which would round out a destructive-adjacent operation, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters including dry_run, post_id, site_id, post_type and revision_id are already documented in the schema. The description's dry_run sentence merely restates what the schema says and adds no format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Restore a post or page to a previous revision') and clarifies the mechanism: it fetches the revision content and updates the post with it. This distinguishes it from siblings like wp_list_revisions (discovery only) and wp_update_post (writing new content), so an agent can pick it 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?

The mention of dry_run to 'preview what will change' gives implicit guidance on safe invocation, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites (e.g., obtain revision_id via wp_list_revisions first) or when-not-to-use alternatives such as wp_update_post for direct edits. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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