serp_undo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It indicates undo/redo are state-changing operations but does not mention potential side effects, such as whether undone operations can be recovered, whether the undo history is limited, or whether it affects only certain object types. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that conveys the core functionality and the optional parameter in a compact, front-loaded manner. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the main behavior and parameter semantics. However, it omits caveats like the scope of 'last operation' (e.g., across all scenes or within current scene), which could be relevant in a complex 3D environment.

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 schema only defines `redo` as a boolean with a default, but the description explicitly explains its meaning: setting `redo=true` triggers redo instead of undo. This directly adds semantic value beyond the raw schema, making the parameter's effect completely clear.

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 the tool's function: undoing the last operation, with an explicit mention of the redo capability via the `redo` parameter. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on creation, measurement, transformation, etc., so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 usage (i.e., after performing an operation to reverse it), but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For a standard undo/redo tool, this is acceptable but lacks explicit guidance.

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