undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Undo the last edit.' It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be reversed with redo, what counts as an 'edit', how undo history behaves, or what happens when there is nothing to undo.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is immediately readable and every word contributes to the meaning.

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-parameter tool, the description provides the essential idea, but it leaves important operational context unstated: undo history depth, reversibility, behavior when no edit exists, and its relationship to the sibling 'redo' tool. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details for the description to clarify, and nothing here is missing or misleading in terms of parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Undo') and the target ('the last edit'), making the core purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as 'redo' or 'remove', so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'redo' as the inverse operation, nor does it state any prerequisites, limits, or conditions under which undo is appropriate.

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