Restore a revision

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), idempotentHint=false (not idempotent). The description adds the key behavioral detail that the current version is saved as a revision first, making the operation reversible. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies the non-destructive nature. It doesn't state whether the operation requires specific permissions (e.g., WordPress edit capability), which would be additional context, but the reversibility is the most important behavioral aspect.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and key behavioral guarantee. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with four parameters (two optional) and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. It doesn't describe the return value or error cases, but since the output schema is absent, the agent might need to know what the response looks like; however, the description's focus on reversibility is enough for the main use case. It could mention that the 'id' must match an existing content item, but schema covers that minimally. Overall, adequate.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema: id is 'Content ID', revision_id is 'Revision ID to restore, from list_revisions'. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the schema is clear. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description's mention of 'earlier revision' reinforces the semantics but adds little.

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 specific verb ('restore') and resource ('content to an earlier revision'), and the title mirrors it. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_revisions, which lists revisions, and is a natural counterpart to restore actions. The action is unambiguous.

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 description makes clear this is for restoring to an earlier revision, implying the need to call list_revisions first (as the schema's revision_id description also suggests, but the description itself doesn't explicitly say 'use list_revisions to get revision_id'). It doesn't state when not to use it (e.g., for content that doesn't have revisions), but the context is clear enough given the sibling list.

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