Reset a customised template

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

It discloses the destructive mechanism (DELETE /wp/v2/templates/{id}?force=true), the dry-run behavior without confirm_token, and the edge case where a Site Editor-created item with no theme file is removed entirely. This is substantial context well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences carry all the essential information: action, mechanism, applicability condition, dry-run flow, and edge case. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow, the candidate constraint, and the worst-case outcome. It stops short of describing the exact response format after confirmation, but the essential operational context is complete.

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?

The schema already covers all four parameters with 100% description coverage, but the description adds meaning around confirm_token by explaining the dry-run preview and what would be lost. It also clarifies the candidate condition for the id/kind parameters, going slightly above baseline.

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 states a precise action: 'revert a template or template part ... back to the theme's file', and names the exact resource and mechanism (deleting the database copy). The 'source is custom' qualifier further distinguishes it from ordinary read/update template tools.

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 clearly gives the condition under which the tool applies: 'Only works on items whose source is custom', and it points the agent to diff_global_styles for finding candidates. It does not explicitly name a 'when not to use' alternative like update_template, but the intended use case is clear.

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