wp_diff_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a compare operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what form the comparison result takes, whether any side effects occur, or whether authentication/permissions are needed.

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, grammatically clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, though it is so short that it misses useful behavioral and parameter context.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of the return value or the semantics of 'compare.' The tool has three parameters, including an ambiguous 'ref,' and the sibling set shows related revision tools, but the description does not explain how the result relates to wp_get_revision or wp_restore_revision.

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%, and the description does not explain 'ref,' 'revision_id,' or 'post_type' beyond what the bare parameter names suggest. 'ref' is especially ambiguous because it can be an integer or string, and the description does not clarify what identifiers are accepted.

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 the specific verb 'Compare' and names the resource ('current raw content of a post/page') against 'one revision,' which makes the tool's core function clear. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like wp_get_revision and wp_restore_revision, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_get_revision or wp_list_revisions. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or common use cases, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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