undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the action and the underlying service, but does not disclose side effects, failure cases (e.g., if no actions to undo), or whether this is a destructive operation. 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Undo the last action') and includes a valuable technical reference. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and scope. It omits behavior details like return values or edge cases (e.g., empty undo history), but for a straightforward command, it is largely complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so schema description coverage is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Thus it meets the baseline.

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 action: 'Undo the last action in Roblox Studio', which is a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('Roblox Studio'). It also names the underlying API (ChangeHistoryService:Undo), adding technical context. This fully distinguishes it from sibling 'redo' and other tools.

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 usage is implied: the tool undoes the last action, and no explicit guidance is given about when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'redo' or any conditions under which this should be used, but the intended use case is easy to infer from the clear purpose.

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