Undo last entry

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that the tool returns what was undone for confirmation and requires explicit_user_intent. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 (undo last entry, kind scope, confirm return), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavioral requirements, and return value. No gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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 description repeats the kind parameter values and emphasizes the explicit_user_intent requirement, but the schema already documents these parameters well (67% coverage). The description adds minimal new semantic insight.

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 most recent intake or hydration entry, using the verb 'undo' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like nourish_delete_intake by focusing on the last entry and recovery context.

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 context for use ('the most common Telegram/agent recovery move') and explains the kind parameter to scope the undo. It also notes the requirement for explicit_user_intent. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other delete/clear tools.

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