Revision wiederherstellen

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states the core action (restoring an older revision as the current version), but does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting current content, irreversibility, permission requirements, or what the response will be. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and all parameters documented, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about return values, side effects, or the effect on the post's revision history, which would be useful for a restore operation. It is adequate but not 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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (postId, postType, revisionId). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents them thoroughly, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Stellt eine ältere Revision als aktuelle Version wieder her' clearly states the tool's action: restoring an older revision as the current version. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like revision_list, revision_get, revision_compare, revision_delete, and revision_cleanup.

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 implies when to use the tool (to roll back to a previous version) but does not explicitly state use cases or exclude alternatives. It doesn't mention that revision_get or revision_compare are for viewing/analyzing rather than modifying, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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