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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is known; the description adds the non-obvious constraint that only one step is undone and that revertibility depends on the state of contained work. It does not say what happens when the precondition fails (error vs. silent no-op), which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 action and its direction, followed by the precondition and the exclusion clause. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is padding.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the state machine and preconditions an agent needs. It is slightly short of complete because failure behavior and idempotency are unspecified.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only implies that the id refers to a batch and adds no format or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

'Move a batch one step back as an undo: developing → planned' states a specific verb, resource, and the exact state transition, which distinguishes it from update_batch and delete_batch without opening any schema. An agent immediately knows this is a reverse transition, not a generic edit.

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 an explicit precondition ('only while every work inside it is still planned') and an explicit exclusion ('Ready batches are frozen history and can't be reverted'). Both the when and the when-not are spelled out, so the agent can decide before calling.

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