session_undo_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses only that the tool reverses N steps; it says nothing about limits, invalid N values, interactions with redo history, or what happens when N exceeds available history. This is a significant gap 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?

Four words plus a parenthetical, all relevant and front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no usage comparison to closely related sibling undo/redo tools, the description does not provide enough context to select and invoke it correctly. The output schema may cover return values, but invocation context, constraints, and sibling differentiation are missing.

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 single parameter 'steps' is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description maps it to 'N steps' in the operation, which is minimal but real added meaning. It does not state valid ranges, defaults beyond the schema's own default of 1, or behavior for zero or negative values.

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 direct verb ('Undo'), a specific resource ('N steps'), and a qualifier ('granular') that implies per-step rather than whole-history undo. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling session_undo or session_redo_step.

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 guidance on when this tool should be chosen over session_undo, session_redo_step, or session_history. The agent must infer the appropriate usage from the name and the one-word qualifier 'granular'.

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