eds_da_rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the behavioral effect: 'restores overwritten documents and deletes newly-created ones.' It also notes the authentication requirement (EDS_DA_TOKEN). It does not cover every edge case (e.g., errors, partial failures), but it discloses the core behavior transparently.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundancy. Every sentence adds valuable information: what it does, what the input is, and the auth requirement. It is efficiently structured.

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 the single nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what to pass, where to get it, and the auth requirement. It does not describe the return value, but without an output schema, that omission is acceptable. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema describes the structure of the undo object with 100% coverage, but the description adds critical semantic context by specifying that the undo object must be the exact one returned by a withUndo push. This provenance information is not present in the schema and is essential for correct usage.

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 its purpose: 'Undo a previous eds_da_push.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from other tools by referencing the push operation. It also specifies the required input context, making it unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when to use: only to undo a previous push that used withUndo, and requires passing the exact undo object. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the usage context is well-defined and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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