undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: SolidWorks accepts a no-op undo silently, so the response reports whether the feature tree actually changed. This is real value beyond the schema. It stops short of covering scope beyond the active model, irreversibility, or failure modes, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence justifies itself by explaining the response semantics. Slightly verbose phrasing ("rather than assuming it did") but no filler that warrants trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description appropriately frames the response semantics instead. For a single-parameter, low-complexity mutation it is largely complete, though it omits any note on undo scope limits or interaction with the feature tree beyond the active model.

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% – the count parameter and its default/minimum are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase "last operations" (plural) loosely echoes the count semantics but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what is already given.

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?

"Undo the last operations in the active model" gives a specific verb (undo) and resource (model operations) with scope limited to the active model. No sibling tool overlaps with undo semantics, so an agent can identify this unambiguously without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the meaning of undo, but the description never states when to prefer it, what it does not cover, or how it relates to siblings like delete_feature or rebuild_model. Adequate but with no explicit routing guidance.

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