unity_undo_last

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers a lot: scope ('Only Unity-registered changes are covered'), side-effect disclosure ('this revert creates no Redo step'), and the force requirement. It stops short of permissions, instance/auth requirements, or a return indication, so not a full 5.

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?

Five dense sentences, each earning its place: core action, force rule, coverage scope, redo side-effect, alternative routing, and exclusions. Scope and the alternative are appropriately front-loaded with zero filler.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, and routing well. It omits any indication of the response or failure modes, which is a minor gap given the action-oriented nature.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing agentId as 'revert this agent's most recent action' and tying force to newer MCP/native groups. This value-add above the already-complete schema justifies a 4.

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 ('Revert') and a precise resource ('the latest verified MCP Undo group'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling unity_undo. An agent can tell this apart from unity_undo/unity_redo without opening the schemas.

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?

Names the alternative ('Use unity_undo for normal Undo/Redo'), states the condition for force:true ('Newer MCP/native groups require force:true'), and gives exclusions ('Reads and execute-code are not targets'). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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