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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the undo also cancels the stage's pending email if it has not been sent yet. It stops short of saying what happens if the email already went out or what error conditions look like, so not 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the email-cancellation side effect appended as a subordinate clause. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Both required parameters are documented in the schema, annotations declare the mutation profile, and the description covers the main side effect, so the agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the failure mode when the email has already gone out is left unstated.

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 UUID parameters document their own origin (eventId from move_application's result, applicationId from list_applications). The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it takes back the latest move of an application, restoring the prior state, as if it never happened. That clearly separates it from delete_application or move_application, though it never names move_application explicitly as the tool it reverses.

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 implied rather than stated: the phrase 'your latest move' tells the agent this only applies to the most recent move event, which is useful scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for undoing an older move.

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