Pop Undo Stack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses bounded execution ('up to steps'), early termination ('Stops early if the stack empties'), return-value semantics ('steps_performed'), and the default step count. It stops short of stating failure cases or side effects on document state, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the boundary condition, and the return/default. Information is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is zero filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names the return field (steps_performed), which compensates for the missing output schema, and covers the default. The main omission is behavior when no active document exists or when DoUndo fails, which is acceptable for a tool this simple.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes steps as 'Number of undo steps to perform (default 1)'. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the 'up to' bounded semantics and by explaining how the return value lets callers detect when fewer steps were available than requested.

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 ('Pop'), a precise resource ('the active document's undo stack'), and the execution mechanism ('via doc.DoUndo'). The title 'Pop Undo Stack' reinforces the action, and no sibling tool performs undo, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from reset_scene, set_params, and the rest.

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 description identifies the operating context (the active document's undo stack) but does not give explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives. Usage is implied: this is the obvious tool for undoing. Given there are no sibling undo-like tools, the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap, not a source of confusion.

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