undo_lift_composition_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states mutation, cross-model persistence, pre-apply divergence check, refusal details, success side effects, and the emitted lift_undone event with original_event_id. This is excellent disclosure of side effects and failure modes.

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?

The description is three information-dense sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary behavioral details. The structure is appropriate for a complex undo operation.

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?

Despite the complexity, the description covers success side effects, failure modes, persistence scope, and audit chain. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how the tool behaves.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 67% with server_version lacking any description, and the description does not compensate for that gap. The lift_id and model_id descriptions in the schema are helpful, but the tool description itself contributes nothing to parameter understanding.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the exact action: applying the inverse of a previous lift_applied composition event. This distinguishes it from forward lift and undo_split siblings. The 'Mutating' note reinforces the purpose as an undo/state-changing operation.

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 provides clear operational context, including the divergence detector re-run and 409 refusal when state has evolved. This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate or likely to fail. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like preview_undo_lift_composition, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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