undo_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a write operation (WRITE), has medium risk, runs the inverse through a governed tool for auditing, and enforces single-use restriction on tokens. It also explains the dry_run preview behavior. This is sufficient transparency for a tool of this nature.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary with risk and purpose, followed by a brief paragraph on key behavior, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information (write, risk, dry_run, single-use) is front-loaded.

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 tool's behavior, parameters, and side effects (auditing, single-use) adequately. It does not explain the return value, but since there is no output schema, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly, though additional context about the inverse tool's behavior might help.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains undo_id as coming from undo_list or `_undo_id` in write results, dry_run as a preview mechanism, and target as pass-through to the inverse tool. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 clearly states it 'apply a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool' and identifies the tool as a write operation with medium risk. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'undo_list' by indicating that this tool executes the undo. The purpose is specific and clear.

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 provides some usage guidance: it explains the dry_run parameter for previewing and notes that a token can only be applied once. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like rollout_undo_deployment or other revert tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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