undo_scene_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the scope of what is restored (instance transforms and material overrides), but says nothing about whether the undo is one-shot or repeatable, whether it requires an active session, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action and target front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the missing context.

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?

A state-restoring mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented required parameter. The critical missing piece – how to obtain undo_id – is absent from both the schema and the description.

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% and the single parameter undo_id has no schema description. The description never explains where undo_id comes from or what format it takes, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 restore action and names the affected data (instance transforms and material overrides in the original scene), so the resource is identifiable. However, it never uses the word 'undo' or links itself to the edit operation it reverses, and with siblings like edit_scene and edit_imported_part present, an agent cannot easily tell which edit this reverses.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus edit_scene or restore_asset, and no precondition such as 'use the undo_id returned by edit_scene'. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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