max_undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the labelling filter, the refusal-on-interleaved-manual-step behavior (including that the error names the step), the stale-target failure, and the 'AI undo disabled' failure. That is exactly the preconditions and failure-mode detail an agent needs before calling a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraint, then failure modes, and no sentence is filler. The middle sentence is multi-clause and dense, but the density is carrying real semantic content rather than padding.

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 an unannotated two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers selection semantics, filtering, refusal conditions, and failure states, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the prose must compensate, and it largely does: `steps` is defined as a count of most-recent undo records and `to_history_id` as an inclusive history-entry boundary, with "either ... or" implying mutual exclusivity. It does not state what happens if both are supplied or how the defaults (1 and 0) interact.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Undo the bridge's OWN scene changes") with an explicit scope qualifier that separates it from generic history browsing siblings like max_history. The two modes of selection (last `steps` records vs. down to `to_history_id`) are stated up front.

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?

Clearly frames the context: it only undoes records labelled 'MCP: <tool> #<id>' and refuses when a manual step sits in between, pointing the user to the settings window instead. The one gap is that it never tells the agent to consult max_history to discover valid `to_history_id` values.

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