rollback_last

Does 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 known. The description adds useful scoping — it destroys exactly one edit, the most recent, and only within the current session. It does not say what happens when there is nothing to roll back, whether repeated calls walk further back through history, or whether the rollback is itself reversible.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the two load-bearing constraints (LAST, current session) are front-loaded where the agent will see them. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 tool is simple, has no parameters, and has an output schema so return values need no prose. What is missing is disambiguation from rollback_pattern and any statement about behavior at the boundaries (empty history, repeated invocation), which matters for a destructive operation that is explicitly non-idempotent.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and the choice to take no arguments is consistent with 'LAST edit' semantics.

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 and target: 'Reverts the LAST surgical edit made in the current session.' The scope qualifiers (LAST, current session) make the operation concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling rollback_pattern, which also sounds like a revert operation, so an agent must guess which one applies.

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 'LAST ... in the current session' implies when this is appropriate (undo the most recent edit), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of rollback_pattern as the alternative for pattern-level reverts. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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