ssh_undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement and the reversible operation constraint. However, it does not describe the result of reverting (e.g., success/failure response) or what happens if the operation is not reversible. The destructive nature is implied but not stated.

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?

Two sentences that are direct and clear. No extraneous information. Each sentence serves a purpose: first explains what and constraints, second adds requirement.

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 tool with 2 parameters, the description covers the essential usage and constraints. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the straightforward nature of undo. Minor gap: does not describe whether the tool returns confirmation or error messages.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by stating that confirm must be true for execution, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies that recordId comes from ssh_history, adding context beyond the schema.

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 verb 'revertir' (undo) and the resource 'operación específica del historial' (specific history operation). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the constraint of only working with reversible operations like ssh_write_file, ssh_upload, ssh_download.

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 explicit context: it only works with reversible operations and requires confirm: true to execute. It lists which operations are reversible, giving clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the constraints are sufficient.

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