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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: partial results with not_restored item lists, later edits being preserved, and a refused undo leaving the token usable. The retry_with_force sentence is confusing — it names a parameter absent from the schema and mentions 'Royally' and 'on the receipt of that change' without explaining the workflow — which keeps it below 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?

The core operation is front-loaded, but the middle sentence about retry_with_force is tangled and references a parameter that does not exist in the schema, plus an unexplained product reference ('Royally'). That sentence costs more confusion than it earns.

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?

The description covers the three outcomes that matter for a destructive undo — full reversal, partial with reasons, and refusal with token preserved — which is strong coverage given no output schema exists. It stops short of saying how to retrieve the resulting receipt beyond 'it is recorded with its own receipt', which the agent must infer maps to fleet__get_receipt.

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 undo_token property already documents the 168h window, hashing and lookup. The description restates the expiry rather than adding new semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Reverse a reversible-write') and the mechanism ('using its undo_token'), which immediately separates it from read-only siblings like fleet__undo_status and fleet__list_recent_changes. An agent knows exactly what this does 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?

The 168h validity window and the requirement for an undo_token imply when the tool is applicable, but the description never routes the agent between this, fleet__undo_status (to check whether an undo is available) and fleet__restore_from_snapshot. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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