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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing a real behavioral trait: fields edited again after the change are left alone and listed, so the agent knows the undo is partial and safe-ish. It also states the human-approval requirement, though it says nothing about what happens if the preview expires or whether an undo can itself be undone.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the id source, then the workflow, then the safety rule. No sentence is filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the workflow, the concurrency caveat and the approval gate, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It leaves the preview's returned content and failure modes unstated, a minor gap given the absent output schema.

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 schema already documents store, change_id, confirm and the preview_id/confirm=true dependency, so the description has little to add. It reinforces the confirm/preview_id pairing but offers no extra meaning for change_id's format or the store parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reverses a change Gridly made earlier') and immediately names change_history as the source of ids, which separates it from the sibling that only reads history. An agent can pick this tool 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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step flow (preview, then call again with confirm=true) and the approval precondition, which is clear usage guidance. It does not address adjacent cases such as pending scheduled changes (cancel_scheduled_change exists) or when an undo is not appropriate, so it stops short of a full 5.

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