Project undo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope context beyond that: which edit families are reverted, that batching is possible via steps, and that other modules are out of scope. It does not state whether an undo can itself be reverted, which would have completed the picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first two sentences, with the module carve-out immediately following. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules]' reference is terse but purposeful, pointing the agent at knowledge lookups rather than being pure filler.

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 tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: affected scope, batch range, and sibling exclusions. Only the reversibility relationship with project_redo is unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter already documents the 1–20 range and default of 1. The description repeats that same range without adding format or edge-case meaning, so it neither helps nor harms beyond the schema baseline.

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 resource (last model edits of the fire model), enumerates the affected edit types (obstacles, holes, vents, devices, settings), and anchors the intent with the Ctrl+Z analogy. It also carves out scope by noting that sprinkler/HVAC/evacuation edits have their own tools, letting an agent separate this from shape_undo and the module-specific siblings.

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?

Gives a clear use condition ('like Ctrl+Z' for the last fire-model edits) and an exclusion for module edits, which is the key routing decision among these siblings. It stops short of naming project_redo as the counterpart action, so the reverse-direction choice is left implicit.

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