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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the WordPress capability required (edit_posts / edit_pages / CPT-specific) and warns that a low-privilege caller may hit a permission error depending on which post_id is targeted. It also explains the server-level read-only marking, covering auth needs and failure behavior that the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and required params, then routing, then return shape, then permission caveats — a sensible order. It runs long and the closing Royally sentence partially restates readOnlyHint, but each block carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, author, date, title, content raw markup, excerpt). Combined with permission caveats and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 both post_id and revision_id are already documented as parent post and revision respectively. The description restates that both are required but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail (e.g. whether a revision_id from another post is rejected). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Gets a single post revision by ID") and immediately enumerates the return shape. It distinguishes itself from both wp_list_revisions (discovery) and wp_restore_revision (mutation) by name, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: use wp_list_revisions to find revision IDs, and use wp_restore_revision rather than manually copying title/content/excerpt into wp_update_post. That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, which is the top of the scale.

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