undo_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the write nature, medium risk, delegated risk tagging, and one-time use. However, it omits details on reversibility, error states, or post-application effects.

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 with a header and structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers essential context (token source, one-time use, dry run). It lacks return value description but adequately addresses the tool's purpose and primary usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: undo_id source, dry_run preview behavior, and target passthrough. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles 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 the verb 'apply' and the resource 'recorded undo', with specific context about dispatching an inverse tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'undo_list' (listing) or other mutation tools.

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 usage context for previewing with dry_run and notes the one-time use constraint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the implicit context.

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