live_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. It discloses only that intent is to reverse edits; it says nothing about whether the undo is itself redoable, whether it fails when there is no history, or what state is affected. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 an undo tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the definition is too sparse. An agent knows what it does but not when it will fail, whether it is safe to repeat, or how to control the number of undone steps.

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 0% for the single 'steps' parameter, and the description never mentions it at all – 'edit(s)' is the only nod to multiple steps. It also does not explain the default step count or why the schema permits negative values, which is exactly the kind of meaning the description should supply.

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 the affected resource (the last edit(s)) in a named environment ('the running Studio One'). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling live_redo, though the description never explicitly names that inverse relationship.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative live_redo. Eligibility is only hinted at by the phrase 'in the running Studio One', which implies the app must be running but is never stated as a prerequisite.

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