Undo and Redo History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: both directions mutate and persist immediately, and the operation restores a per-badge snapshot limited to the most recent mutation. It does not explain the irreversibility/state-loss implied by destructiveHint, so 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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and scope, and the when/when-not guidance is compact. However, the undo/redo definitions are stated twice (general sentence and again in the 'Use when' clause), and the '(readOnlyHint false)' parenthetical repeats the annotation verbatim, adding mild redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a single-enum-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, both action semantics, mutation/persistence behavior, and sibling routing — everything an agent needs to invoke it 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 100% with a single enum parameter, so the schema already documents undo/redo fully. The description restates the same meanings ('undo reverts a mistaken or unwanted change; redo re-applies the most recently undone change') without adding syntax or format detail, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific verbs (undo/redo) plus the exact resource and scope: 'the most recent state mutation, restoring the prior per-badge snapshot.' This distinguishes it from all entity-management siblings, which the description names explicitly.

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?

Contains explicit 'Use when' conditions mapped to each action value, plus a 'Do NOT use when' exclusion that routes the agent to the correct alternative tools (manage_lore, manage_story, manage_world) when the target change is not the most recent mutation.

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