undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'using UE4's transaction system', which hints at the mechanism but does not explain side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or whether it modifies the current level. This is a significant gap for a tool that mutates state.

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. It front-loads the action and scope, and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks behavioral context such as what happens after undoing (e.g., whether the redo history is cleared) and whether there are any prerequisites. A bit more detail would make it fully self-contained.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'count', describing it as 'Number of operations to undo (default 1)'. The description's use of 'N' maps directly to this parameter, adding minimal additional meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the parameter semantics.

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'), the target ('the last N operations'), and the mechanism ('UE4's transaction system'). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from the sibling 'redo' and other history-related tools like 'history_list' and 'checkpoint_restore'.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'Undo' and the phrase 'last N operations' – it's obvious when to use it. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for reverting to a specific checkpoint, use checkpoint_restore). This is a clear but unstated context.

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