LightCMS

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

Excellent clarification of behavioral nuance: despite 'destructiveHint' annotation signaling state mutation, description explains it 'creates a new version with the old data' rather than destructive overwrite. This preserves history and mitigates data loss fears, adding crucial context beyond 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?

Extremely concise with two information-dense sentences. Front-loaded action ('Revert content...') with mechanism explanation following. Zero redundancy or filler.

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?

Covers the essential 'copy-on-write' behavioral quirk adequately for a destructive operation, but lacks coverage of error cases, return value shape, or prerequisites given no output schema exists. Acceptable but gaps remain.

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, parameters are already well-documented. Description implies 'content' maps to content_id and 'previous version' to version, but adds no syntax details, format specifics, or examples beyond 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 specific verb (revert) and resource (content/version) clearly. Distinguishes from sibling 'revert_theme_to_version' by specifying 'content', but does not explicitly differentiate from 'restore_content' (restore from trash vs. version revert).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_content_versions' to identify target version first) or prerequisites. No mention of error conditions (e.g., invalid version number).

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