undo

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description is consistent, describing a restoration write. It adds the key behavioral fact that the reversal is keyed to a run_id, but omits whether current file contents are overwritten, whether the operation is itself reversible, and permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, object, and scoping parameter — zero waste.

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 destructive restore with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics but leaves gaps: interaction with files created after the run, overwrite behavior, and confirmation/authorization expectations.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description is the only source of meaning for run_id, and it does clarify that run_id identifies the previous run whose changes are being reverted. It does not describe format, whether it must match a successful run, or error behavior for unknown ids.

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 a specific verb ('Put back') and resource ('the files a previous run changed') scoped by run_id, which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like run/next/readiness. No explicit naming of a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Implies the use case (revert changes from a prior run) and a precondition (a run must have changed files), but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives for partial/selective reverts.

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