Undo

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

Annotations are minimal: readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, which indicate this is a mutating operation. The description doesn't add much beyond that, but it does mention the repeat behavior (stepping back multiple times). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like losing unsaved changes or limitations due to undo history limits, which would be useful given that the annotation already implies 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?

The description is short and to the point, with only two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence 'Repeat to step further back' is somewhat redundant with the parameter, but it is informative and not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate to allow an agent to call it. However, it could be improved by mentioning that undo history is limited and that multiple steps can be specified via the parameter, making the second sentence unnecessary. But it probably is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'steps', which explains its default value. The description adds a note about repeating to step further back, but that is redundant with the parameter's existence. The description doesn't add much new meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool undoes the last operation in After Effects, which is a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the many sibling tools that also modify the project (e.g., ae_add_layer, ae_set_layer), though the 'undo' concept is somewhat self-explanatory. It could benefit from specifying that it undoes the previous editor action.

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 description does not provide when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. It only says 'Undo the last operation' and 'Repeat to step further back', which implies iterative use but there is no mention of when this tool should be preferred over other modification tools. Since there are many siblings that modify the project, this is a gap.

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