anilist_undo

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, confirming it modifies state. The description adds that it restores the previous state of the affected list entry, providing clarity on the specific behavioral outcome. It also mentions the token requirement, enhancing transparency. No contradictions with 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the purpose, scope, and requirement. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured with the key information front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it undoes, the effect (restores previous state), and the authentication requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention potential failure conditions like no previous write.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.

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 explicitly states the tool undoes the last write operation, lists the specific operations it can reverse (update progress, add to list, rate, delete, batch update), and explains it restores the previous state. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, as no other tool provides undo functionality.

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 implies when to use (after a write operation) and notes the authentication requirement (ANILIST_TOKEN). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, such as if there is no previous write to undo, or any limitations like a single undo step.

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