Reverse the most recent SketchUp operation to restore a model to its prior state after an unintended edit or change.
Undo the most recent SketchUp operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | No | ||
| active_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the single-step scope ('most recent'), with no mention of what state is restored or that a redo is required to reverse it.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description omits usage context, parameter meaning, and any reversal semantics. Annotation coverage is the only thing carrying the behavioral story.
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 0% for two parameters, and the description mentions neither model_id nor the non-obvious active_path array. It fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
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 resource (most recent SketchUp operation), making the effect unambiguous. It does not name its obvious sibling model_redo, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the complementary model_redo tool, which is the natural alternative in the sibling list. An agent must infer all routing behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.