undo

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a basic fact. It does not mention side effects, whether the undo is reversible via redo, what happens if no actions exist, or any destructive implications. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and resource with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Even though there is an output schema present (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks important context such as whether undo history is supported, how many levels can be undone, or what happens when no prior action exists. For a single-parameter tool, it is minimal but still leaves notable gaps in understanding the tool's operational boundaries.

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 shows a single required parameter 'image_id' with no description (coverage 0%). The description's phrase 'in an image' vaguely relates to this parameter but does not clarify its meaning or format beyond what the parameter name/title already implies. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool's function: 'Undo the latest action in an image.' It uses a specific verb ('undo') and resource ('image'), and the scope ('latest action') distinguishes it from broader operations. The sibling 'redo' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'redo' or other image-editing actions. The description does not mention conditions (e.g., whether an undoable action exists) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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