wp_pages_restore_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool writes revision title/content/excerpt back to the parent page, making clear it mutates the page. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the current content is overwritten without undo, whether a new revision is created, or permission requirements), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple tool with two integer parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core operation and the specific fields affected. It is complete enough for typical use, though it omits details about return values or behavior after the restore, which would be nice but are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameter descriptions and the description does not explicitly map page_id and revision_id. However, the phrase 'revision of a page' and the tool name strongly imply that page_id identifies the page and revision_id identifies the revision to restore. This provides some semantic value beyond the bare schema, but it stops short of fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool restores a previous revision of a page, with the specific verb 'Restore' and resource 'page'. It further clarifies the action by listing the fields written back (title/content/excerpt), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool wp_pages_get_revision (which retrieves) and wp_posts_restore_revision (which targets posts).

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 context: if you want to revert a page to a previous revision, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like wp_posts_restore_revision for posts, nor does it discuss prerequisites such as checking that the revision belongs to the page.

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