Shape undo

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

Annotations already disclose the key traits: not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds only that the affected object is the *last* mutation, which is useful scoping but no further behavior (stack limits, behavior when nothing to undo, pairing with redo).

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 short sentence, namespace-prefixed and front-loaded, with no filler. It is perhaps overly terse given the open questions about scope and redo, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-param mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what happens on an empty undo stack and how it relates to redo or to project-level undo, which an agent would want before invoking.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; it correctly signals the zero-argument nature by describing only the single affected target.

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 document mutation) scoped to Shape Studio. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though the boundary with the sibling project_undo 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus project_undo, nor any mention of a redo counterpart or the depth of the undo stack. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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