undo_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly labels the tool as [WRITE][risk=medium], discloses that the inverse runs through its own governed tool with its own risk tier, notes that a token can only be applied once, and explains the dry_run preview behavior. This goes beyond basic purpose, though it omits error handling and return format details.

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 leading risk marker, a short paragraph on behavior, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and key behavioral constraints (single-use, dry-run, risk governance). It does not explicitly state return values or failure cases, but these are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature and the availability of sibling tools like undo_list.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: undo_id (source from undo_list or _undo_id), dry_run (preview behavior), and target (pass-through behavior). This adds essential meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 opens with 'Apply a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool,' which clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling undo_list by focusing on application rather than listing, and the mechanism of dispatching an inverse tool adds valuable specificity.

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 explains that undo_id comes from undo_list or a write result, and suggests using dry_run=True to preview without executing. This establishes clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond the implicit undo_list. No exclusions are provided, but the context is sufficient for correct use.

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