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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists exactly what is removed and restored, notes that every row is checked first, guarantees no changes if anything changed since, refuses in a different model, and previews by default. These details are consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 front-loaded with the core undo action and follows with precise safety and preview conditions. It is dense but efficient, with little wording that does not convey useful behavior.

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 undo tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description explains the effects, validation, refusal condition, and preview behavior well. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain how runId should be supplied or what the preview returns.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains apply clearly by saying previews occur unless apply is true, and it implies runId by referring to 'the run named', but it does not specify runId's format or how to obtain a run identifier.

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 states a specific verb and object: it undoes the latest tendon_write or a named run. It also distinguishes the tool from tendon_write by explaining that it targets writes and removes/restores the effects they created.

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 clearly explains when to use it: to undo the latest tendon_write or a specific named run, newest first. It also states the important default behavior that the tool previews unless apply is true, though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives beyond naming the run option.

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