undo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'guarded' qualifier adds a small behavioral nuance (safety via confirmation). However, it does not disclose the underlying mutation side effects, the state-version check, or the token lifecycle, which are relevant beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. The core action and resource are stated immediately, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a non-trivial guarded workflow, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required two-phase flow (plan first, then apply with token and expectedStateVersion), the safety rationale, or how the tool fits into the broader undo/redo context. An agent would need to infer critical steps from the schema alone.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details; it merely restates the plan/apply concept already evident in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 states a clear verb ('plan or apply') and resource ('guarded Ableton undo operation'), distinguishing it from redo by naming the undo operation specifically. It is not a tautology and gives the core purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the redo sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus redo or other mutation tools, nor when to choose planning (dryRun) versus applying (confirmationToken). The two-phase workflow is implied by the schema but not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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