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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds genuinely new behavior: undo is partial, reverting only the portions nobody has edited since, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema. It stops short of saying what happens to the edited portions or whether the undo itself can be reversed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the identifying argument is front-loaded before the partial-revert caveat. Nothing needs trimming.

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 not be explained. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, however, the description omits the practical consequences of the partial revert (edited sections stay changed), whether a repeat call is safe, and what failure looks like when the change is stale.

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% and both parameters already carry descriptions tying changeId to recent_changes and listingId to list_listings. The description adds no format, lifetime, or validity detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Undo one change by its changeId" names a specific verb (undo) and resource (change), with the identifying argument stated inline. It is unambiguous on its own, though it never contrasts itself with any alternative behavior an agent might reach for.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema points changeId at recent_changes, which suggests the discovery-then-undo flow but is not restated in the description. There is no explicit guidance on when not to undo, whether the change must be recent, or what to do if the undo partially fails.

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