unmanned_revert_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the discovery burden. It meaningfully reveals edge behavior: it costs no quota, and three reverts on one page in a day freeze the page's prose for 24 hours. It does not describe output or permission requirements, but the safety and rate-limit characteristics are well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then cost rationale and warnings. Every sentence adds distinct information: what to do, how to get the right revision, and the limitation/warning on repeated reverts.

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 restore/revert tool with no output schema, this description covers the important aspects: the operation, the ID source, the extraordinary no-quota policy, and the freeze penalty. It is slightly thin on what the 'reason' parameter should express, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to attempt the call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: to_revision should come from unmanned_page_history, and 'one page' maps to entity_id. It does not explain what reason should contain or give the exact expected formats of entity_id/to_revision, so a meaningful gap remains.

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 opens with 'Restore an earlier revision', which is a precise verb and object, and immediately tells the agent where to get valid revision IDs: unmanned_page_history. The later phrase 'three reverts on one page' makes clear this operates on a page, distinguishing it from siblings like unmanned_create_page and unmanned_revise_page.

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?

It provides clear operational context: this is the cleanup/revert tool, it is free by design, and it is explicitly not for opinion/fact disagreements — those should go to the fact layer. It does not name the specific alternative tool, but the sibling list includes assert_fact/retract_fact, so an agent can route correctly.

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