undo

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (something is reverted) and a concurrency guard ('requires matching revision'), but says nothing about what happens on revision mismatch, whether the undo is itself undoable, what gets restored, or what the result looks like — all critical for a destructive-ish operation.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, so there is no waste — but the brevity is a byproduct of under-specification rather than disciplined density.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description leaves most of the operational picture (prerequisites, failure modes, idempotency) unaddressed. It gestures at revision matching but is far from sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% with 4 parameters (request_id, session_id, document_id, expected_revision) all undocumented. The phrase 'requires matching revision' hints at the expected_revision parameter's conflict-check role, but session_id, document_id, and request_id (idempotency?) get no explanation.

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 contains an undo verb plus 'document', but '撤销显式文档' is ambiguous phrasing that doesn't clearly state it reverts the last explicit edit on a document, nor does it distinguish the tool from the sibling 'redo' or 'apply_operations'. An agent would need to guess whether this undoes an edit, a session, or a transaction.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus 'redo' or 'apply_operations', no precondition beyond the vague 'matching revision', and no exclusion or alternative named. The agent is left to infer the whole call policy.

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