revert_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It lacks information on permissions required, whether the revert is reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications, version history), or error conditions (e.g., if post is already a draft). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential 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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, behavioral context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It does not explain what 'blogId' and 'postId' represent, their format, or how to obtain them (e.g., from 'list_posts'). This leaves both parameters undocumented, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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') and target resource ('a published post'), specifying the outcome ('back to draft'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_post' (removal) and 'update_post' (modification), but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'create_post' or 'publish_post' in terms of state change.

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 on published posts only, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_post' for editing content or 'delete_post' for removal. No prerequisites (e.g., post must be published) or exclusions are stated, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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