wp_create_revision_note

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

The description includes one important behavioral trait: 'Original content is not modified,' indicating non-destructiveness. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other relevant behaviors such as authorization requirements, whether a new revision is created in the database, rate limits, or the tool's side effects beyond the note attachment.

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 front-loaded sentence, which is efficient. It could include more useful detail without becoming verbose, but it avoids unnecessary words.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the purpose of ID, type, and note, and clarify the expected outcome (e.g., created revision draft ID). It also omits prerequisites like the existence of a post/page. The tool is under-specified for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not define 'id' (presumably post/page ID), 'type' (post or page selection), or 'note' (the editorial note). The enum in the schema provides 'type' options, but the description adds no semantic value to any parameter.

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 ('Create a revision draft with an editorial note') and adds a distinctive detail ('Original content is not modified'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like wp_create_draft_post, which create new drafts rather than revisions of existing content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the tool requires an existing post/page ID or that it is intended for adding editorial notes before publishing. The absence of 'when not to use' or alternative references leaves the agent without decision context.

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