jump_to_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait that this collapses many undo/redo steps into one state change. It also documents the return payload inline (success/message/operation), which no output schema provides. It does not state permissions, reversibility, or whether the jump itself is recorded in history.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Returns section earns its place since there is no output schema. The Parameters block largely duplicates the already-complete schema, which is the one redundant section.

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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, state-change semantics, both parameters, the return shape, and the sibling needed to obtain a valid operationId. Only explicit guidance on undo/redo vs. jump and side-effect/reversibility notes are missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's Parameters block restates projectId and operationId without adding format, valid-value, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('jump to a specific operation in the history') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('effectively performing multiple undos or redos'). An agent can distinguish this from the single-step undo/redo siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and routing hint ('Use get_operation_history to get available operation IDs'), and the undo/redo framing implies when multi-step navigation is preferable to single-step undo. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer undo/redo over this tool.

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