Undo the last change

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

The description discloses crucial behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the undo is recorded as a new revision, nothing is deleted, and the operation is itself reversible ('it can itself be undone'). This directly clarifies what happens to the entity's history and confirms the non-destructive nature, adding substantial value over the annotations' bare destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action, the revision mechanics, and the dry-run guidance. It is front-loaded with the action, and there is no redundant wording or filler.

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 tool with three simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the operation's behavior, reversibility, and safe invocation. It does not mention edge cases like having no prior revision, but given the output schema and the straightforward semantics, the definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of dry_run but does not add materially new parameter-level semantics beyond that. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action ('Step one change back: restore the entity's previous revision') and precisely scopes the operation to 'the most recent edit made through this server.' The 'Equivalent to restoring seq-1' line further disambiguates the semantics from generic revision tools. This is clearly distinct from siblings like repovive_restore_revision or repovive_diff_revisions.

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 scope is explicit: it undoes only the most recent edit, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus restoring an arbitrary revision. The description also gives a concrete safety practice, 'Use dry_run=True to see what would change first.' It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the 'most recent' framing provides solid routing context.

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