undo_last_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the tool writes the file, that TrenchBroom-HL reloads automatically, and importantly that unsaved editor edits default to KEEPING the editor version. This is a subtle behavioral hazard that agents need to know. It stops short of a 5 because it does not mention what happens when no snapshot exists or what the tool returns on success/failure.

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 compact and information-dense: the main action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the critical side-effect and editor-reload behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema fields.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential ground: purpose, edit scope, step granularity, file-write effect, and editor reload behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify the no-snapshot case or the tool's return/confirmation behavior, but these are not blocking for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, map_path, and the schema already describes it fully as the absolute path to the .map file. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Restore'), a resource ('the map'), and a precise scope ('state before the most recent edit made by this server'), while also clarifying the snapshot-based, one-step limit. This makes the tool's job unambiguous and distinguishes it from broader map-editing operations.

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 description gives clear context for when the tool applies: only for edits made by this server, and only one step per call. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not-to-use it, which keeps it a point below full guidance, but the scope and call-by-call limitation are clear.

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