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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it explains that the current content is preserved as a new previous revision, that the reply contains an undo token scoped only to title/content/excerpt (not other revisioned fields or meta), and that nothing changes on the site until a human approves it in Royally. That is exactly the mutation/async semantics an agent needs.

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 the action, then effects, permission, return value and async behavior — every sentence carries information. The inline '(site: demo.royalplugins.com)' duplicates the site_id enum description and could be dropped.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers reversibility, undo scope, permissions and the human-approval delay. The remaining gap is how to obtain a valid revision_id, which is the one required parameter.

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 only 50%: site_id is documented (enum), but revision_id is a bare integer with no description, and the description does not say where to get one (e.g., from wp_get_post_revisions) or what happens with an invalid/stale ID. It only implicitly frames revision_id as 'a specific revision'.

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 to a specific revision') with scope, and the surrounding sentences clarify it is a revision-level restore, not a generic update. An agent can distinguish it from wp_get_revision_content and wp_diff_revisions 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 gives the precondition ('Requires edit_post capability on the parent post') and explains the approval gate, which helps decide whether to call it. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., wp_update_post to edit directly, wp_get_revision_content to inspect first) or states when a restore is not appropriate.

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