revert_to_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: a NEW revision is created (so history is preserved, not overwritten) and the revert is logged. However, it omits permission requirements, reversibility of the revert, and side effects on related content.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds genuine behavioral value rather than filler. No wasted 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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient and even explains the side effect (new revision created). It could have noted the need for a valid existing revision or where revision_id originates.

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 coverage is 100% and both required params (content_id, revision_id) are documented in the schema, so the description is not expected to add much. It adds no syntax or sourcing detail (e.g., where revision_id comes from) beyond the schema.

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 (revert) and resource (content item to a specific revision), which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_revisions or update_content, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 (revert to a target revision) but never states when to prefer this over get_revisions (to find a revision) or update_content (to edit manually). No prerequisites or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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