undo_apply

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it flags the [WRITE][risk=medium] profile, explains the inverse is audited through its own governed tool with its own risk_level, discloses the once-only token constraint, and documents the dry_run preview. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure that aligns with (does not contradict) the destructive/non-idempotent hints.

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-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] markers and core action, followed by a well-formed Args block. Given the zero schema coverage, the per-parameter lines are justified rather than redundant.

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 meta-write tool that fans out to other tools with no output schema and no annotations beyond hints, the description covers purpose, audit behavior, safety preview, idempotency limits, and all params. Return-side and error/failure behavior are not described, though an output schema is absent so this is a modest 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: undo_id's provenance, dry_run's preview behavior, and target's conditional pass-through are all explained. target's expected format/value is still somewhat vague, leaving a minor 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Apply a recorded undo') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('dispatching its inverse tool'). It is cleanly distinguished from its read sibling undo_list, which is named as the source of undo_id rather than a tool to confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear context: where to obtain undo_id (undo_list or an _undo_id from a write result) and when to use dry_run=True (to preview without executing). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives guidance, but the path to correct usage is well laid out.

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