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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation), the description adds two substantive traits: all-or-nothing atomicity and conflict refusal when a setting changed since the recorded set. It leaves retry/error surface unstated, so it stops short of a 5.

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, no filler, and the mechanism plus its identifier source are front-loaded before the atomicity and refusal caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, identifier provenance, atomicity, and the failure precondition — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around what the agent should do after a refusal.

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 the single undo_id parameter is already documented as coming verbatim from change_settings or change_history. The description restates that provenance without adding format, validation, or scoping detail, 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?

Specific verb+resource (reverts the settings a change set replaced) with the exact identifier it consumes and the two sibling tools that produce it (change_settings, change_history). An agent can distinguish it from change_settings without opening the schema.

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 states the triggering prerequisite clearly — you must have an undo id produced by change_settings or change_history — and the refusal condition tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not name a fallback path (e.g. re-issuing change_settings instead), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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