undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating that the tool returns 'can_undo' and 'can_redo' flags after the operation, informing the caller about further undo/redo availability. This surpasses simply describing the action.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action, the second details the return value. No filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded. Excellent conciseness.

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 has no parameters and a clear output schema (implied by the description of returned flags), the description is complete. It covers the action, equivalent keyboard shortcut, and post-operation state flags, leaving no gaps for agent understanding.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and output. This meets the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 tool undoes the last action in Ableton Live, using the familiar analogy 'equivalent to Cmd+Z'. This verb+resource combination leaves no ambiguity about its function and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'redo'.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to revert the last action), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For a single-purpose undo tool, this is sufficient, though explicit exclusions could elevate the score to 5.

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