revert_last_write

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: it routes to a single undo stack and correctly reverts both raw and wheel-field writes. However, it does not disclose behavior when the stack is empty or effects of repeated calls.

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, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and additional detail about the undo stack is provided efficiently.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and mechanism. It could mention edge cases like no prior write, but overall it's sufficient for a simple tool.

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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate; baseline 4 is given per rules.

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 'Revert the last memory write' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like write_memory by focusing on undoing, and adds detail about handling both raw and wheel-field writes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., manual overwrite or other tools). The context does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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