undo_last_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool restores the file to its previous state and operates independently of the draw.io editor undo, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not mention what happens when there is nothing to undo, whether the undo is reversible, or any side effects beyond the state restoration.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the first defines the operation, the second clarifies its independence from the editor. No unnecessary words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It defines what the tool does, the scope (MCP operations), and clarifies the relationship to the editor undo. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is vacuous. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no parameter-related information that would require elaboration.

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 undoes the last MCP operation on a draw.io diagram and restores the file to its previous state. It uses a specific verb ('undo') and resource ('MCP operation'), and distinguishes itself from the draw.io editor undo and the sibling redo_last_operation.

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 context that this tool is for undoing MCP operations, not editor actions, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like redo_last_operation or get_change_history, so it lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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