wp_get_revision_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that a diff is computed against current content, which is helpful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the diff output looks like, how differences are represented, or whether any metadata is included in the result.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The verb and core comparison are front-loaded, and the field list adds useful scope without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter read-oriented tool, the description covers the core purpose, but gaps remain: no output schema, no return format, no side-effect statement, and no guidance distinguishing it from sibling revision tools. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented revision_id parameter. It only refers to 'a revision' generically and adds no practical meaning such as where to obtain revision_id, whether it comes from wp_list_revisions, or how it relates to a specific post.

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 names a specific operation (diff), the resource (a revision), and the comparison target (current post content), and even lists the fields involved (title, content, excerpt). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wp_get_revision, wp_restore_revision, and wp_get_snapshot_diff.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_get_revision or wp_restore_revision. It implies a comparison use case but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing guidance to help the agent pick between closely related revision tools.

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