undo_draft_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral boundary — the change is confined to the draft and does not propagate to the live Google Form — but omits what happens at the earliest version, whether the rollback is itself reversible, and any auth requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action. Nothing is wasted, though "without touching Google Forms" is vague enough to be marginally less useful than a concrete statement like "does not modify the published form."

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the definition leaves an agent guessing about identifier format and edge-case behavior. For a state-mutating rollback tool this is thin.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single draft_id parameter, and the description never addresses it beyond the indefinite article "a draft." An agent gets no format, source, or identifier guidance to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

"Move a draft back by one version" gives a specific verb and resource with a clear unit of change, and "without touching Google Forms" scopes it away from the publish/update siblings. It stops short of naming a distinct alternative tool, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus get_form_draft, patch_form_draft, or publish_form_draft. The only implied guidance is the negative scope ("without touching Google Forms"), which hints it is a local-only rollback but never says so explicitly.

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