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, and it does reasonably well: it flags '[WRITE][risk=medium]' behavior, states the inverse runs under its own governed tool and audit tier, explains one-time-only application, and mentions the dry_run preview capability. It doesn't note required permissions or what the response format is, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 efficient — front-loaded with the risk marker and core purpose, followed by concise parameter explanations. The structure with an Args section is standard and scannable. Slightly verbose in the first paragraph (re-explaining audit behavior) but generally tight with no wasted words.

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/undo operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the dry_run escape hatch, one-time semantics, and parameter provenance. It could note the response shape or error conditions, but given the moderate complexity (3 params, no nested objects), this is largely complete for safe tool invocation.

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 explain all parameters and does so: undo_id is sourced from undo_list or _undo_id in write results, dry_run previews without executing, and target passes through to the inverse tool. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types and titles, covering all three parameters.

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 the tool applies a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool. It identifies the resource (undo records) and action (apply), and distinguishes from siblings like undo_list by mentioning undo_id comes from such listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or clarify what happens to the undo record after application beyond 'can only be applied once.'

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 clear usage context: apply a recorded undo, pass dry_run=True to preview, and a token can only be applied once. It gives practical guidance on when to use dry_run. However, it doesn't explicitly call out when NOT to use this tool or name alternative actions, though the 'can only be applied once' constraint is a useful operational guardrail.

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