Undefine Items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about reversibility, what definitions are removed, whether analysis is invalidated, or whether permissions are needed. Only the mutation verb 'undefine' hints at destructive behavior.

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 short sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise—it carries almost no information an agent could act on.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It omits what happens to the targeted range, whether the operation is reversible, and how errors or timeouts are surfaced.

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 description coverage is 100% for all four parameters (address, size, timeout, instance_id), so the schema already documents them fully. The description's 'range' wording aligns with address+size but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a verb ('undefine') and a scope ('in a range'), but it essentially restates the title 'Undefine Items' and never explains what an 'item' is (instruction vs. data vs. type) or what 'undefining' does in IDA terms. An agent can infer it is some kind of inverse of make_code/make_data, but only by guessing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as make_code, make_data, or delete_function that operate on the same address space. The agent must infer applicability entirely on its own.

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