undo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say whether undo is document-scoped, whether it can be reversed, or what happens when there is nothing left to undo.

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 efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero waste. It is not under-specified enough to be a conciseness failure, though 'operations' (plural) is slightly at odds with the default single step.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive nature, so the core is covered. Still, for a destructive mutation the description omits scope and reversal behavior, leaving the agent to infer how undo interacts with the document history.

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 100% with a single well-documented 'steps' parameter, so the schema carries the meaning. The description's plural 'operations' loosely hints at multi-step undo but adds no format or limit details beyond the schema.

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 ('Undoes') and resource ('the last operations in SolidWorks'), which is unambiguous and distinct from all listed siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself, but no sibling overlaps, so the purpose reads clearly.

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 no guidance on when to use undo versus other corrective actions (e.g., delete_feature, suppress_feature) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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