Revert Staging Site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a reversion but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is destructive (overwrites current staging site), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., logs changes), involves rollback mechanisms, or provides confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (contentSiteId, reason, stagingSiteId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that contentSiteId and stagingSiteId must correspond) or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the action ('revert') and target resource ('staging site'), specifying it returns to a 'previous state'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_staging_site' (destructive removal) and 'revert_staging_site_section' (partial reversion). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_staging_site' or 'publish_staging_site', which could involve state changes, making it slightly less specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a previous state to revert to), exclusions (e.g., not for published sites), or compare to siblings like 'revert_staging_site_section' for partial changes or 'update_staging_site' for incremental updates. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.

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