wp_restore_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the safe-mode confirmation requirement, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not state that restoring overwrites current content, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed—so transparency is partial.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and unambiguous. The second sentence is short but repeats the confirm requirement already in the schema, so it earns only partial credit for conciseness; otherwise there is no fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives the core purpose and a safety condition. It is missing guidance on where revision_id comes from (e.g., wp_list_revisions), the destructive overwrite behavior, and what the response will be. This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 50%; only confirm has a schema description. The description's phrase 'to a previous revision' adds semantic context to revision_id, indicating it identifies the target revision, and it restates the confirm requirement. It does not explain how to obtain revision_id or the safe-mode trigger, so value is modest.

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 'Restore' with a clear resource: 'a post/page to a previous revision.' This distinguishes it from sibling revision tools like wp_list_revisions, wp_get_revision, and wp_get_revision_diff, which do not mutate content. No tautology or vagueness.

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 only guidance is the conditional 'confirm:true required when safe mode is enabled,' which is a prerequisite for some invocations but not a use-case comparison. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing or diffing revisions first; the use case is merely implied by the verb 'restore.'

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