live_undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return value, that a refused undo counts 0, and the non-obvious behavior that mixer parameter changes become late-recorded, merging undo steps. It omits whether undo is itself reversible or what a refusal means operationally (e.g., empty history vs. locked state).

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, front-loaded with the action and return value, then the caveat, then the corrective instruction. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical list of mixer parameters is slightly verbose but illustrative.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return value and the tricky merge behavior, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'steps' parameter, which leaves the caller guessing about multi-step semantics.

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 0% for the single 'steps' parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Last edit(s)' hints at multi-step undo, but nothing explains the default, negative values, or the maximum range the schema allows.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Undo the last edit(s) in the running Studio One') and states the return value ('returns how many ran'). It is clearly distinguishable from live_redo by the verb alone, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: check the result rather than counting steps, and 'Undo again until your edit is gone.' It explains the failure mode (mixer parameter changes recorded late and merging) that makes naive step-counting unreliable. It does not mention when to prefer live_redo or how to recover from over-undoing.

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