Roll back a post to a previous revision

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the rollback preserves history by saving the restored content as a new revision. It omits permission/team requirements and reversibility of the new revision, so it is good but not complete.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the one non-obvious behavior (new revision). No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the destructive flag and a fully documented 5-parameter schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It would be complete with a note on required team context and how the resulting revision is identified, but nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter (including postNumber, revisionNumber, wip, message, teamName) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('rolls back') and resource ('a post') with the target ('the specified revision'), and adds the key side effect of creating a new revision. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like esa_update_post or esa_archive_post, though it never names those alternatives.

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 a restore/history use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no contrast with esa_update_post (the obvious alternative for editing), and no prerequisites such as needing a revision number obtained earlier.

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