undo_mutation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses inversion behavior, non-reversible handling, and dry_run support. It omits error/edge behavior like missing receipts or auth requirements, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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?

Four short sentences, all substantive and front-loaded. There is no filler, and the most important scoping fact—receipt ID—appears first.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, inversion semantics, non-reversible returns, and dry_run behavior. It does not describe a successful return payload, but enough is present for correct invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description adds little beyond confirming dry_run support, which the schema already explains.

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 an unambiguous verb+resource pair: undoes a specific mutation by receipt ID. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling undo_last_mutation by emphasizing 'specific' and 'receipt ID', so an agent can select it confidently.

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 implies usage: call this when you have a receipt ID for a prior mutation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like undo_last_mutation or undo_preview, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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