undo

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

Annotations declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description meaningfully adds context beyond that: the return payload (steps undone plus can_undo/can_redo) and the important warning that undo history is shared with the user's own edits. It does not describe error behavior when there is nothing to undo, hence not a 5.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and range before moving to semantics and caveats. Every sentence adds distinct information with no 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?

Despite no output schema, the description discloses the return contents (count plus can_undo/can_redo), the range constraint, the relationship to other tool calls, and the shared-history caveat. An agent has everything needed to call this 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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well: it defines the valid range (1..100) and the meaning of `steps` as the number of set-changing calls reverted. The schema only declares a default of 1, so this adds real value; minor gap is no explicit statement of out-of-range behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Undo the last `steps` actions in Live') with scope and semantics. It clearly explains what one undo step is, but does not explicitly name the sibling `redo` tool to disambiguate, so it falls just short of the sibling-differentiating bar.

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?

Gives clear operational context: every set-changing AbletonMCP call is one undo step, so undo() reverts the previous call. It also warns that history is shared with the user's own Live edits, which informs when using this is appropriate. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so not a 5.

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