revert-page-revision

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true; the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. For a mutation operation that likely overwrites current page content, it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or the need for revision ownership, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the simple 3-parameter schema and idempotency annotation, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks usage differentiation from sibling page-editing tools and doesn't mention the destructive nature or outcome. No output schema means some return-value context would help, though not critical for a revert operation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for courseId, pageUrl, and revisionId, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('revert') and resource ('page') with a clear target ('previous revision'), distinguishing it from siblings like update-page-content, patch-page-content, and apply-page-changes. It states exactly what the tool accomplishes.

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 the use case of rolling back a page to an earlier revision, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used instead of update-page-content/patch-page-content for restoring historical state.

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