undo_last_operations_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal mechanism (walking the provenance DAG and rolling back), but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, error handling, or what happens if count exceeds available operations. Partial transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

No output schema and no description of return values or failure cases. The description covers the core behavior but omits what the user can expect as a result (e.g., success status, new world state) and edge cases like an invalid 'count'. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage. The description implicitly explains 'count' as the number of operations (N), but it does not explicitly define 'projectId' or its role. It adds some meaning for count but leaves the required parameter underexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('belief revision operations'), with a scope (last N) and mechanism (walking the provenance DAG). This distinguishes it from similar tools like rollback_to_tool, which likely rolls back to an arbitrary state.

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 implies usage when the user wants to revert recent operations, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rollback_to_tool, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Clear context is present but not differentiated from siblings.

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