ab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the undo stack is untouched and explains the side effects of both bypass values. However, the mechanics behind 'writes back every kept move's old value' and 'puts sublevel's moves back in' are unexplained, leaving the actual state modification ambiguous and incomplete.

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 and contains no wasted filler, so it is concise in length. However, it is dense and not well front-loaded: 'A/B by ear' is unclear and the long first sentence mixes two mode definitions without separating the core purpose. Conciseness is present, but clarity of structure is lacking.

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?

The description leaves out essential context: what 'A/B by ear' means, what a 'kept move' is, what a 'sublevel' is, and when this tool should be used relative to siblings like undo, compare, or revert_all. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the operational context is too incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the schema only states that 'bypass' is a required boolean with title 'Bypass'. The description compensates by defining both bypass=true and bypass=false behaviors, which is exactly what an agent needs to choose the right value. The definitions are still phrased in unstated domain jargon, preventing a perfect score.

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 gives specific behaviors - 'writes back every kept move's old value' and 'puts sublevel's moves back in' - so it is more than a tautologyaint, but the high-level purpose of 'A/B by ear' is never defined. The terms 'kept move', 'old value', 'sublevel', and 'the set as it was' are domain jargon that an agent cannot decode into a clear operation. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond noting that the undo stack is untouched.

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 no explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like undo, revert_all, or compare. It implies two modes of operation (bypass=true and bypass=false), but never states the conditions under which an agent should choose this tool. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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