LightCMS

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Creates a new version with the old data.' This disclosure that reverting creates a new version entry (rather than destructive rollback) is valuable transparency beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes operation and resource; second sentence provides essential behavioral information about version creation. 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 destructive 2-parameter tool with complete schema documentation, the description appropriately explains what the operation does and its non-destructive version creation behavior. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers the operation's intent and side effects.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents both parameters (version number and optional comment). The description implies the version parameter but does not add semantic details, syntax constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given comprehensive schema coverage.

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 uses specific verb 'Revert' with resource 'theme' and scope 'to a previous version'. The second sentence 'Creates a new version with the old data' clarifies the semantic behavior. It distinguishes from sibling 'revert_to_version' by explicitly mentioning 'theme' in the description.

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 through resource naming (theme vs content), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings like 'revert_to_version' or 'restore_content'. The agent must infer applicability from the tool name and description alone.

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