Undo

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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the one-step-per-tool-call granularity and the need for repeated calls to undo multiple changes. It does not cover edge cases such as no undo history or permission constraints, but its added value is solid.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by two clarifying sentences that each earn their place. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with full parameter documentation and complete annotation coverage, the description provides enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around edge cases (nothing to undo, cross-project history) but nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema already describes it fully (100% coverage), including the default to the most recently used project. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Undo the last change to the open project.' It clearly distinguishes the action from non-undo tools. However, it never names the obvious sibling history_redo, so an agent must infer the boundary from tool names alone.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call once to reverse one tool call, and repeat to undo further changes. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly redirect to history_redo, leaving that comparison implicit.

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