undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses which operations can be undone and what the return fields are, but omits permissions required, failure behavior, and how undo interacts with the redo stack.

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 core action is front-loaded, then supported by a scannable bullet list and a returns section. Since no output schema exists, the returns section is informative rather than redundant, and the description remains appropriately 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully explains the return shape, and with no annotations it lists undoable operations and the status-check prerequisite. It remains somewhat incomplete on error paths and redo interaction, but is sufficient for a one-parameter mutation tool.

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% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already defines the parameter. The description adds no syntax or extra semantic detail beyond indicating the operation occurs 'in a project', matching the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Undo the last operation in a project'), plus an enumerated scope of undoable entity types. It clearly distinguishes itself from redo and operation-history siblings by stating it reverts the most recent project 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use get_undo_redo_status to check availability, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to choose undo versus redo or what to do if undo is unavailable.

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