photoshop_undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious 'undo' behavior and does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying document history), reversibility via redo, or how document_id affects retargeting. This is a significant gap for a 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. The Ctrl/Cmd+Z analogy adds value without bloat, making it concise and well-structured for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context about the redo counterpart, undo stack limitations, and the role of document_id is only visible in the schema. Overall, it's enough to use the tool, but clear gaps in behavioral context remain.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'steps' and 'document_id', so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action (undo) and the resource (last operation(s)), and the Ctrl/Cmd+Z analogy reinforces the meaning. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like photoshop_redo, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as photoshop_redo or photoshop_get_history. The description leaves the agent to infer context, offering no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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