wp_restore_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning the preference for the wp-mcp companion endpoint and that the fallback 'rewrites core REST title, excerpt, and content'. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether the restoration overwrites the current post, creates a new revision, requires specific permissions, or has failure conditions.

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 concise, using two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is stated efficiently. The phrase 'optional wp-mcp companion endpoint' is somewhat cryptic, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 potentially destructive operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain the effect on the current post, what the response looks like, how dry_run works, or what ref refers to. An agent would need to infer critical invocation details from the parameter names alone.

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 only 40%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain the roles of ref, revision_id, post_type, or how dry_run and if_unmodified_since affect the restore operation. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 identifies the operation as 'Restore a revision', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling revision tools like wp_list_revisions, wp_get_revision, and wp_diff_revision by implying this tool performs a write/restore action rather than inspection. However, it doesn't fully clarify whether the restoration is limited to title, excerpt, and content or is broader.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_get_revision, wp_update_post, or other update tools. It mentions the fallback mechanism but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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