undo

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that undo is additive (a new change is written), the per-item outcomes (created items archived, edits restored, links removed/restored), and the conflict policy of leaving recently re-edited items alone and reporting them. This matters because destructiveHint=true might otherwise read as a hard rollback; the description corrects that mental model rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three dense sentences: mechanism first, then per-type outcomes, then the conflict and policy caveat. No filler, and the crucial 'not a real rollback' framing is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is applied, what happens per entity type, and conflict handling. It stops short of saying what the call returns (the new change set?) and what 'same policy' concretely gates.

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 50% and the required 'changeset' parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates by saying its id appears on every event it logged, telling the agent where to obtain the value. The optional 'actor' parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema, which does cover it.

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?

States a specific verb (reverse) plus resource (one change set) and explains the mechanism: the opposite is applied as a new change rather than a true rollback. It is distinguishable from siblings like change/revise, though it never names which sibling to prefer.

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?

Implicit when-to-use: pick this to reverse a prior change set, and the note that an edit changed again since is skipped and reported clarifies an edge condition. There is no explicit routing against alternatives such as revise or change, and 'Subject to the same policy as any change' gestures at a precondition without stating it.

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