ass_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 add useful behavior: it describes the return keys, the empty-stack edge case ('undone' is False), and a 0-based convention. It omits other relevant traits such as whether the undo requires the document to be the active one, what 'dirty' means, and whether the operation can fail.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the return contract, then the edge case in three tight sentences. The trailing note about 0-based line indices is irrelevant to an undo operation and is minor noise, but overall it is efficiently sized.

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 restating the return keys is largely redundant, while the genuine gap — the semantics and default of doc_id — is left uncovered. For a mutation-style history operation with no annotations, the definition is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single parameter doc_id, and the description never explains it. The null default (presumably 'current document') is undocumented, so an agent cannot tell what omitting doc_id does, which is exactly the gap the description should fill.

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 resource ('Undo the last ... change of a document') and narrows scope with 'snapshot-backed', which distinguishes it from a generic history restore. It does not explicitly name the sibling ass_redo or contrast with ass_undo_history, so the sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 meaning of 'snapshot-backed' implies which changes qualify for undo, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the ass_redo/ass_undo_history alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. a document must be open). Usage is left to inference.

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