Undo or redo ICC Plus mutation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: 'in-memory' clarifies the mutation is not persisted, and 'while keeping revision conflict protection' signals that revision checks are enforced. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 that immediately names the operation and the most important constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text or repetition of title/schema information.

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?

Core behavior and safety profile are covered, making the tool usable for basic invocation. However, it omits prerequisites like an open project, potential errors (e.g., nothing to undo), and the meaning of expected_revision. For a destructive tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the three parameters. It only alludes to revision conflict protection without clarifying expected_revision's role or how action enumerations map to behavior. The schema's self-explanatory names and enum provide some guidance, but the description itself adds little.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Undo or redo one in-memory mutation.' This clearly identifies the operation and scope, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools because none of the siblings mention undo/redo functionality.

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?

Provides clear context that the tool operates on in-memory mutations of the current project, which implies when it should be used relative to other mutation tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose among siblings makes this acceptable.

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