undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: history is bounded to 30 steps. It omits whether undo is itself undoable, whether the history persists across sessions, and whether it is scoped to a document or global. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the bound. Efficient, though the terseness contributes to the ambiguity around the parameter.

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, but the unexplained required parameter and the absence of any note on irreversibility, scoping, or history exhaustion leave real gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it. Whether 'name' identifies the structure/document being undone or something else is left entirely ambiguous, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Undo the last edit') with a concrete bound ('up to 30 steps'), which is enough to distinguish it from the construction/rendering siblings. It does not explicitly say what is being undone (structure edits vs. block edits), but the intent is clear.

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 to undo versus correcting via replace_blocks/set_blocks, no mention of a redo counterpart, and no statement about what happens once the 30-step history is exhausted. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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