undo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that it restores every file, but omits failure modes (partial undo, files changed since apply, conflicts) that matter for a mutating file operation.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier ('from an applied plan') is placed where it matters. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety flags. Still, for a mutating undo operation the description is thin: it does not indicate whether the undo is all-or-nothing, what happens on partial failure, or whether it can be re-applied afterward.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. 'Applied plan' does clarify that plan_id must reference a plan that has already been applied, which is real added meaning, but format, source of the id, and validation are still unspecified.

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 concrete action (put files back) and its scope (every file from an applied plan), which clearly pairs it with the sibling apply_plan as its inverse. It stops short of naming apply_plan explicitly, but the phrase 'applied plan' makes the pairing inferable.

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 phrase 'from an applied plan' implies the tool is used after apply_plan has run, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the plan was never applied or was already undone, and does not contrast with siblings like plan_tidy.

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