undo

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose key behaviors: that undo typically works sequentially, may have a history limit, or what happens if no edits exist. It fails to specify whether it's a destructive or safe operation.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action. However, it might be overly terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

Given 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description should explain what 'last edit(s)' means and what the result looks like. It is insufficient for the tool's complexity; e.g., it doesn't mention that undo affects the document state or how to interpret success.

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 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already defines parameter semantics adequately.

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 the action ('undo') and target ('last edit(s)'). The verb 'Undo' and noun 'edit(s)' directly describe the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'redo'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'redo' or 'checkpoint'. No mention of prerequisites or limitations (e.g., undo history depth, session scope). The description is too generic to help the agent decide when to invoke.

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