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

The annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new scope information: only the agent's own most recent change is reverted, and the person's edits are unaffected. It still omits what happens after the undo (returned state or error when no change exists), which is relevant for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the scope caveat about the person's own edits. No filler and nothing that could be cut.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, most requirements are met, but the description does not say what the caller gets back after undoing, whether the undo is limited to the latest change only across all plans in the project, or how a no-op case behaves. The 'plan' vs project_id wording adds ambiguity that a complete description would resolve.

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% with a single, fully documented project_id, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter and slightly conflicts by referring to 'a plan' while the param is project_id, leaving the plan/project relationship to inference.

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 ('takes back') and resource ('your own last change to a plan'), which is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings like edit_project. It does not explicitly name the reverse counterpart redo_change, so the sibling boundary is only implicit; it also says 'plan' while the sole parameter is project_id, a small naming mismatch.

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: 'your own last change' hints that this reverts a single most recent agent edit. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of redo_change as the opposite action, and no guidance on what to do if there is nothing to undo.

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