undo_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that only the most recent record is affected, but it omits critical traits like whether the action is destructive, irreversible, or what happens if no record exists yet. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and follows with a brief use-case clarification. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 stateless, zero-parameter tool that has an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, because there are no annotations, it would benefit from explaining edge-case behavior (e.g., attempted undo with no records) or explicitly noting irreversible side effects.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no schema detail for the description to clarify. The empty schema already provides complete coverage of the parameter space, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 a specific action (撤销/undo) applied to a specific resource (最近一条喝茶记录 / most recent tea-drinking record). The parenthetical '记错了可悔' reinforces the use case, and the tool is unambiguously distinct from siblings like record, history, and inventory-related commands.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a tea-drinking record was made by mistake, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as record or history, nor does it define exclusion conditions. Usage guidance relies on the parenthetical hint rather than a clear statement of when to choose this tool over others.

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