Undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say what happens when the history is exhausted, whether undo can be re-applied, or whether the operation is limited to edits in the current session. The only disclosed trait is that multiple steps can be undone.

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, front-loaded with the action and with no filler. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral gaps it leaves, but there is no wasted content.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should do more work. It omits history limits, error behavior, and any relationship to bb_redo, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the operation.

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% for the single 'steps' parameter, and the parenthetical '(one or more steps)' is the only indication of what that parameter means. It confirms the parameter controls undo depth but does not specify valid ranges or behavior when steps exceeds the available history.

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 description states a specific verb (Undo) and its resource (the last edit), plus the scope of a variable number of steps. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bb_redo, which is the natural alternative an agent would weigh.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the related sibling bb_redo. The usage is only implied by the word 'Undo' itself, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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