Annuler le dernier lot

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: only creations are undone, colour changes and deletions are NOT restored, successive calls pop batches newest-to-oldest (stack semantics), and calling with no batch fails loudly instead of silently no-op'ing. That last point is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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 core action, then scope limits, then stack/error semantics – each paragraph earns its place. It runs slightly long for a nullary tool, but no sentence is filler given the non-obvious scope restrictions.

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 and no parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does: it covers what is reversed, what is not, ordering of repeated calls, and the failure mode. Nothing needed to call this correctly is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and the schema's additionalProperties:false confirms the no-arg contract is intentional.

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 ('Annule le dernier lot d'écriture') and immediately disambiguates by naming the exact operations it reverses ('le dernier appel à draw ou à build_structure'), plus the mechanism ('en supprimant les entités qu'il a créées'). An agent can distinguish it from delete_entities or set_entity_color without opening any 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('dès qu'un lot s'avère faux après l'avoir regardé avec render_view') and names the alternative it beats ('c'est plus sûr que de supprimer à la main'). It also names render_view as the required verification step, leaving nothing to inference.

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