plasticity_undo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint — that it reverts only the single most recent edit rather than an arbitrary point — but says nothing about reversibility of the undo itself (redo), or why a revision argument is needed at all.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; efficient and readable. It is arguably under-specified rather than too long, but as a structure it is clean.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage on a required 'revision' parameter, one sentence is not enough. The description should at minimum clarify the revision argument and the undo/redo relationship.

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% with two parameters, one of them required ('revision'), and the description explains neither. 'Revision' is especially non-obvious for an undo operation and the description offers no hint of its format or purpose.

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 (undo) and scope (most recent document edit), which is more precise than a generic 'undo'. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling plasticity_redo, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no mention of plasticity_redo as the natural alternative, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer everything about context.

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