undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether the undo is destructive, whether it overwrites newer changes, what happens with an invalid or already-undone run_id, or whether it requires confirmation/permissions. Only the basic revert semantics are conveyed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the parameter scoping parenthetical at the end; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but structurally it earns its place.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it says nothing about safety, reversibility, error behavior, or what a successful undo returns. Given the complexity of undoing a run, an agent lacks the context needed to call it confidently.

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% for the single required param, so the schema alone is thin. The description adds that run_id identifies 'a previous run' whose changes are targeted, which gives real meaning, but it omits any format, source, or how to obtain a valid run_id.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Put back') with a specific resource ('the files a previous run changed'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like 'run' or 'next', but the wording clearly ties it to reverting a prior run's effects.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is for reversing changes from a previous run. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no mention of when not to use it versus alternatives like re-running, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance.

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