undo_optimizer_suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses a side effect (CMS writeback) and auth requirements. It stops short of stating whether the CMS change is reversible or what specifically gets reverted.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the permission requirement. No wasted words, though the writeback clause is compressed to the edge of ambiguity.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, the key concerns (auth, CMS writeback) are covered and an output schema exists. Still missing what the undo restores and any precondition on the suggestion's state.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage; the description never mentions suggestion_id. The name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no format or sourcing guidance, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('undo') plus the resource ('snippet/link suggestion') and scopes it with 'including CMS writeback.' An agent can distinguish it from approve/reject siblings by the reversal semantics, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

States the required permissions ('requires content:approve and content:publish'), which implies a prior-approval workflow, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. reject_optimizer_suggestion or what state the suggestion must be in to undo.

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