Apple Undo Action

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

Annotations already communicate that this is non-idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds the meaningful conditional that undo only works when underlying MCPs support it. It stops short of disclosing what happens otherwise — whether the tool returns an error, silently no-ops, or partially reverses — which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with the core verb and resource front-loaded, and the reliability qualifier justifies its length because it prevents misuse. There is no wasted wording.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the definition is broadly adequate, but two gaps remain: the source of action_id (the sibling apple_list_recent_actions is clearly the companion but is never referenced) and the ambiguous meaning of 'recent' (order of undoability, time window). An agent could select the tool but might struggle to invoke it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter meaning. 'A recent Apple-Tools action' does map naturally to action_id, but it never tells the agent where to obtain a valid ID (e.g., from apple_list_recent_actions) or what form the ID takes. The compensation is partial, not complete.

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 states a clear, specific action ('Undo') with a well-defined resource ('a recent Apple-Tools action'), and the qualifier about reliable reversal adds real meaning rather than vagueness. No sibling tool performs this function, so differentiation is unnecessary.

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?

The phrase 'when the underlying standalone MCPs support a reliable reversal' gives a genuine precondition for use, which is useful. However, it provides no exclusions, no guidance on how to determine whether a reversal is reliably supported, and no alternative to fall back on when it is not.

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