confluence_revert_page

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the revert action and API version but does not mention side effects (e.g., data loss), permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. Provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Description is very concise: three sentences plus parameter list. No redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

No output schema or annotations. Description covers the operation but lacks details on return values, confirmation, or consequences. For a destructive action like revert, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the schema: explains page_id accepts numeric ID or URL, version_number is target version, version_message is optional. Schema has 0% description coverage, so description compensates well.

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 (revert), resource (page), and scope (to a previous version). It distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_edit_page or confluence_compare_versions by specifying the restore operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not conditions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states the API used.

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