live_undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'reverts' implying a destructive action, but does not disclose whether the operation is reliably successful, what happens when there is no change to undo, or any confirmation behavior related to the 'confirm' parameter. The description lacks necessary detail for safe invocation.

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 consists of two short, direct sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value: 'Trigger Live's undo' establishes the action, and 'Reverts the last LOM-visible change' clarifies scope. It is perfectly concise for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits common behavioral aspects such as whether undo operates on the current edit or across sessions, and it does not mention that undo may fail if no changes are available. The description is adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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 has one parameter ('confirm') with no description, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or effect. The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility to clarify the parameter. Without any explanation, an agent cannot understand how the 'confirm' parameter influences behavior.

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 triggers Live's undo and reverts the last LOM-visible change. The verb 'trigger' and noun 'undo' are specific, and the wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'live_redo' and 'live_continue'. The scope is well-defined by 'last LOM-visible change'.

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 like 'live_redo'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an action to undo) or conditions under which undo might not work. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other tools.

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