multiple_undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is reversible, how many undo levels are affected, what happens if there are no more undos, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of vagueness. It lacks structure or front-loading of key information; 'expanded operation' adds no value and is ambiguous.

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 undo operation, the description should at least mention scope (e.g., 'undo last N steps') or behavior (e.g., 'performs consecutive undos until the project is at a certain state'). Without an output schema and with no annotations, this description is profoundly incomplete for even a basic tool.

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 0 parameters, so the input schema is effectively empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline is high because there are no parameters to describe. The description adds nothing about parameters, but that is acceptable given there are none.

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 says 'multiple undo' which indicates the tool performs undos, but 'expanded operation' is vague and does not specify the exact behavior (e.g., how many steps, whether it's a single batch operation or repeated). It does not clearly distinguish from the sibling 'undo' tool beyond implying multiple steps.

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 'undo' or 'redo'. No context about typical workflows, prerequisites, or scenarios where multiple undo is appropriate. The description lacks any usage advice or alternatives.

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