mcp_clean_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Delete old post revisions' without explaining what determines 'old' (e.g., the 'keep' parameter logic). It does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or effects on post history, which are critical for a destructive operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise.

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 is destructive and has no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits return value (e.g., number of deletions), error handling, and side effects. A more complete description would clarify the behavior and outcomes.

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 sole parameter 'keep' is fully described in the schema as 'Revisions to keep per post'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 'Delete old post revisions' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('old post revisions'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mcp_clean_comments by targeting revisions specifically.

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 usage for cleaning up post revisions but lacks explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., user capabilities), or conditions where it should not be used. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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