revert_post

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavior context: content is preserved, only visibility changes, and this is the safe way to remove a post. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the non-destructive nature is explained, and the safe-use framing earns its place. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and safety-relevant annotations, the description is complete. It covers eligible states, the effect, and the safety profile, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides no property descriptions, so coverage is low. However, blog_id and post_id are self-explanatory identifiers, and the description references posts and blogs, giving enough context. The description does not explicitly map parameters or explain their format, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: taking a live or scheduled post back to DRAFT. It clarifies that the post is removed from the blog while content is kept, and positions this as the safe alternative to deletion, distinguishing it from delete_post and publish_post.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use for live or scheduled posts that need to be pulled down without destroying content. It implies that delete_post is the destructive alternative, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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