undo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that undo is limited to a single operation (not a bulk/history rollback), but says nothing about what state is restored or what happens when there is nothing to undo.

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 the scope qualifier placed right after the verb, so nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as written it is tight and front-loaded.

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 described, and annotations cover the mutation profile. For a simple one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but the unexplained material_id and the absence of any redo cross-reference leave the definition minimally complete.

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, material_id, with 0% schema description coverage and a default of empty string. The description never explains what material_id means or what happens when it is omitted (presumably the active material), leaving a real semantic gap that the schema does not fill.

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 bounds its scope ('one operation in the selected or active material'), which is far more informative than a bare 'undo'. It does not, however, name or contrast with its sibling 'redo', so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself and the mention of 'selected or active material' gives some context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the redo sibling or to any prerequisite (e.g. that an operation must exist in the history).

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