Fl Undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the short delay and the save_point behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention that undo is a mutating operation, what state is affected, or any side effects beyond the undo itself. Since annotations are absent, more behavioral detail would be expected, but the delay note adds some transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, followed by the secondary mode and a timing caveat. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 two-parameter action tool, the description covers the essential usage: how to undo, redo, and create a save point, plus the delay. It does not specify return values or error behavior, but the output schema exists and the tool is simple. This is reasonably complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain steps (including negative direction) and save_point (creating a named point). This covers both parameters meaningfully, though it does not state defaults or edge cases like step count limits.

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 specific verb (undo/redo) and resource (FL steps), and clearly distinguishes two modes: undoing N steps and creating a named save point. This is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like fl_transport_command or fl_exec.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use undo vs redo (negative steps) or when to prefer save_point over steps. It does not mention any alternatives or exclusions. The only context is the delay note, which hints at timing but not selection criteria.

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