undo_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It openly marks the operation as '[WRITE][risk=medium]', explains that the inverse tool runs under its own governance and risk tier, warns that a token can only be applied once, and mentions dry_run to preview without executing. This goes beyond a simple 'apply' and discloses key behavioral traits.

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 with a clear summary line, a brief paragraph of important caveats, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the [WRITE] and risk indicator.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and behavior comprehensively. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the inverse tool's result or a success/failure status). With no output schema, a brief note on return value would make it fully complete.

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 provides only titles with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does: undo_id is sourced from undo_list or _undo_id, dry_run previews the inverse call, and target is passed through conditionally. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Apply a recorded undo by dispatching its inverse tool.' This distinguishes it from sibling tool undo_list, which lists recorded undos, and other write tools. The verb and resource are specific, leaving no ambiguity.

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 by noting the undo_id source ('from undo_list or an _undo_id in a write result') and the dry_run preview option. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool versus listing undos.

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