undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the key behavior that this undoes the full AutoCAD history, which is critical for an undo operation. It does not mention other traits like reversibility or edge cases, but the primary caveat is well covered.

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 only two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no annotations), the description captures the essential purpose and behavior. It omits parameter details, but the output schema likely covers return values. The core context is sufficiently complete, though parameter semantics would improve it.

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 zero description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'steps' parameter at all. The parameter name 'steps' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how many operations will be undone or how the value is interpreted.

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 undoes the last operations of the active drawing, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting it undoes the entire AutoCAD history, not just agent actions, which differentiates it from any potential sibling undo 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 description provides clear context about when to use the tool: when you need to undo operations on the active drawing, and it cautions that it affects the full history, not just agent actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope clarification is enough to guide selection.

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