krita_edit_history

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that exactly one step is performed, that the tool awaits completion, that history is not scoped to bridge operations, and that operation_id reuse prevents double-stepping after a timeout. These are meaningful behavioral details that help an agent predict execution semantics. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 deliver the core action, scope, and an important idempotency caution without redundancy. The most critical behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by clarifying scope or timeout 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?

The description covers the main action, scope, and timeout behavior well, which is strong given the annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. However, it does not clarify what happens when no enabled undo/redo step is available or how 'active document' relates to the required document_id. These edge cases are notable gaps for a destructive tool with no output schema.

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 must compensate. It only adds meaningful semantic information for operation_id, explaining that it can be reused to avoid duplicate steps after timeout. The parameters instance_id, document_id, and direction receive no additional explanation beyond the schema's names, types, and enum, leaving most parameter semantics to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Perform exactly one enabled native undo/redo step on the active document.' It also adds distinguishing scope by clarifying that history includes user edits and is not scoped to bridge operations, which prevents confusion with any sibling tools. No other tool in the list performs undo/redo, so this is clearly differentiated.

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 provides useful context about when this tool applies: it operates on native undo/redo history, includes user edits, and is not scoped to bridge operations. It also gives an operational guideline to reuse operation_id to avoid stepping twice after timeout. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so this is sufficient.

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