music_plan_undo

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), but the description adds behavioral context by explaining that this tool creates a plan rather than directly applying changes. 'Preview-and-approval' indicates a workflow step, disclosing that it likely doesn't mutate the state immediately. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the tool's essence efficiently.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It clarifies the tool's role but could be more explicit about what 'reversible part' means or what inputs are expected. Overall sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0% and the only parameter change_id is not described. The description indirectly implies change_id refers to the prior change, but does not explain its format or meaning explicitly. This partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a preview-and-approval plan for the reversible part of a prior change. The verb 'Create' and specific resource 'plan for the reversible part of a prior change' distinguish it from sibling tools like music_plan_changes, which likely plan new changes.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for undoing or reverting prior changes, specifically their reversible parts. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the wording implies when to use this tool versus planning new changes.

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