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 does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is a write operation with medium risk, that the inverse call is routed through a governed tool and audited, that dry_run avoids execution, and that a token is single-use. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond a simple 'undo' label.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the build marker and one-sentence purpose. The Args block is concise and directly useful, with no filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior or parameters.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential information needed to call it correctly: source of undo_id, dry_run behavior, target passthrough, and the one-time-use caveat. It omits what the return value looks like, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.

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 schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description's Args section fully documents each parameter: undo_id's source, dry_run's preview behavior, and target's passthrough semantics. This completely compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning beyond the raw types.

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 uses a specific verb 'Apply' with a clear resource ('a recorded undo') and mechanism ('by dispatching its inverse tool'). It distinguishes itself from undo_list by referencing undo_id as the source of the undo to apply, making the tool's role unambiguous even without explicitly naming siblings.

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 operational context: it applies a recorded undo, supports dry_run=True for preview, and notes that a token can only be applied once. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the reference to undo_list as the source of undo_id implies the list-vs-apply split well enough.

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