undo_apply

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a write operation ([WRITE][risk=medium]), the inverse runs under its own risk tier, dry_run preview is available, and a token can only be applied once. This provides good transparency.

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 at 5 sentences plus an Args list, well-structured with a header and parameter explanations. It earns its place without verbosity, though could be slightly more streamlined.

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 annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's function, parameters, behavior, and safety notes. It lacks explicit return value details and error conditions, but is largely complete for typical 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args block: undo_id sourced from undo_list, dry_run for preview, and target passed through. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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.' It uses specific verb 'apply' and resource 'undo', and distinguishes from sibling undo_list by referencing undo_id from undo_list.

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 the mechanism and parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like undo_list. It implies usage context by mentioning the inverse tool and dry_run, but lacks direct comparisons.

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