undo_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write nature, risk tier, that the inverse tool is governed/audited, that dry_run exists, and that tokens are single-use. This is substantive but could elaborate on error handling.

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 compact and well-structured: a header line, a brief paragraph with key constraints, and a clean Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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 write tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers core behavior: purpose, dry-run mechanism, one-time use, and parameter roles. It lacks error-condition details but is otherwise comprehensive.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters beyond the schema: undo_id's source, dry_run's effect, and target's passthrough behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with '[WRITE][risk=medium] Apply a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool,' which clearly states the action (apply) and the resource (recorded undo). It distinguishes itself from undo_list by explaining the mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It instructs users to pass dry_run=True to preview without executing, and notes that a token can only be applied once. It also references undo_list as the source for undo_id, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.

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