revert_to_published

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool destroys draft changes and reverts to the published version, and it adds a consent requirement. It does not mention irreversibility or permission needs, but the core destructive behavior is clearly surfaced.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first in clear terms, followed by a terse but important safety condition. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is largely sufficient: it states the action, the target resource, and a usage condition. Minor details such as failure modes when no published version exists are not covered, but they are not essential for basic correct invocation.

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 only parameter, pageId, is fully documented in the schema with the description 'Page id to revert' and a minLength constraint. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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 uses specific, action-oriented language: 'Discard all draft changes and revert a page to its last published version.' It clearly identifies the resource (a page) and the exact operation, and it is readily distinguishable from sibling operations like publish_page or promote_dev_draft.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call after the user confirms.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool relative to user intent, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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