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. 'Undo' implies mutation, but there is no mention of whether the action is destructive, reversible, or scoped beyond 'kept proposals'. The 'most recent first' ordering is helpful but does not address side effects.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key scoping detail. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool, the description conveys the essential operation. However, because this is a mutating 'undo' tool with no annotations and no usage context, an agent might still be uncertain about destructive consequences or when this tool is the right choice.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does this by connecting 'n' to 'the last n kept proposals', which gives meaningful semantics beyond the bare integer and default value. No range or constraints are stated, but the core meaning is clear.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Undo'), a resource ('kept proposals'), and a count ('n'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'kept proposals' scope helps distinguish it from broader revert 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as revert_all or history. The usage is only implied by the action 'undo', with no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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