Roll back a post to a previous revision

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

The annotation indicates destructiveHint: true, so the description must clarify the destructive nature. It says 'saving the restored content as a new revision,' which is ambiguous about whether the current content is overwritten or preserved. The description does not fully disclose that the rollback replaces the current content, potentially losing unrevisioned changes. This is insufficient given the destructive annotation.

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, concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of a destructive rollback operation with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the behavior of the current post content, the reversibility of the rollback, or what the tool returns (e.g., the updated post or a success flag). This lacks completeness for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 the descriptions in the input schema are thorough. The tool description adds minimal additional semantic value, such as 'saving... as a new revision,' but mostly restates the schema. 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 clearly states the action ('rolls back') and the resource ('a post to the specified revision'), and it saves the restored content as a new revision. This distinguishes it from editing or posting actions, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like esa_update_post.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the parameter 'revisionNumber' hints at getting the revision from esa_get_post before edits, implying the usage context. But no direct guidelines on when to use or when not to use are provided.

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