armorpaint_undo

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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds behavioral context by warning that not every operation is covered by history and that checkpoints protect whole workflows, which is useful beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the caveat about operation coverage is placed second, making the description easy to scan and understand.

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 has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is largely sufficient. It communicates the main behavior and an important limitation, though it could more explicitly address edge cases like an empty history or the relationship to redo.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter-level burden on the description. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 clearly states the action ('Undo') and the resource ('most recent operation recorded by ArmorPaint history'), so an agent understands what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like armorpaint_redo, leaving the distinction to inference from the name and context.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use redo to reapply an undone operation' or 'use this when a recent action needs reversing.' The caveat about coverage is useful but does not tell the agent the conditions under which undo should be chosen.

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