undo_apply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the inverse executes through its own governed, audited tool with its own risk tier, and a token can only be applied once. That single-use constraint is important and not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the write/risk tag and the core action, then layers behavioral notes. The Args block partially restates schema titles but adds real semantics; overall tight with minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive write, the description covers the audit path, the preview path and the single-use limitation. It never says what a successful apply returns (though dry_run implies a preview payload), which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: undo_id's provenance, dry_run's preview semantics, and target's pass-through behavior ('when it accepts a target'). The pass-through wording is slightly imprecise about when target is actually forwarded, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 (apply) plus resource (a recorded undo) and clarifies the mechanism — dispatching the inverse tool. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling undo_list, which is named as the source of the undo_id.

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?

Tells the agent where the undo_id comes from (undo_list or an _undo_id in a write result) and when to use dry_run=True. It does not, however, state when not to apply an undo or compare against alternatives like apply_changes/reconfigure.

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