native_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does so reasonably: it discloses that the tool acts on real application state including manual edits, that one workflow may produce multiple native steps, and that no retries occur. It does not say whether the operation is reversible or how stale-revision conditions are reported, leaving some behavioral gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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 core capability, step limit, and no-pseudo-undo constraint are front-loaded in the first two sentences. A couple of lines ('A workflow may create multiple native steps') add little for the space they occupy, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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?

The output schema means return values need no explanation, and the description handles native-history semantics and prerequisites adequately. However, for a parameterized state-mutating tool with no annotations and zero schema documentation, the unresolved semantics of session_id, request_id, and error behavior on a stale revision leave meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must document all five parameters and it does not. It covers 'steps' (1..20, default 1) and hints at 'direction' via 'undo/redo', but never states the accepted values explicitly, and 'session_id', 'request_id', and 'expected_revision' beyond a passing reference to a fresh observed scene revision are entirely undocumented.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: applying native Orca undo/redo history steps and reading the result. It explicitly rules out file-level pseudo-undo, which separates it from a naive undo implementation. It falls short of 5 only because 'Orca native history' is somewhat domain-specific and the sibling set offers no direct undo alternative to contrast against.

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?

It states clear preconditions (foreground Prepare mainframe, fresh observed scene revision) and explicit exclusions (no file-level pseudo-undo, no automatic retries), which tells an agent how the tool must be invoked. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or describing what to do when the revision is stale.

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