Revision Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'delete' but omits whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to revisions reverting to this point, required permissions, or any cascade effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the omissions noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but a destructive 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and zero annotations leaves the agent without permissions, reversibility, or parameter-format information.

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% and the description adds nothing about entity_type, entity_id, or revision_id. It does not clarify allowed entity_type values, ID format, or how revision_id is obtained (e.g., from revision_list).

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific revision of an entity'), which is clear and distinguishes it from revision_list, revision_get, revision_revert, and revision_diff. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus revision_revert (which also removes a revision's applied state) or when deletion is preferred. No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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