td_undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state by undoing or redoing the last change and that it can affect entire td_build batches, but it doesn't mention persistence, irreversibility, success/failure behavior, or side effects.

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 compact sentence with the action and scope front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the core invocation shape. The main missing piece is behavioral context around when an undo is possible and what exactly is affected, but low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 schema has a single boolean 'redo' with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'Undo (or redo)' hints at the parameter's purpose, but it doesn't explicitly state that true means redo while false/default means undo.

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 uses a specific action, 'Undo (or redo)', and a clear target, 'the last change', with an added scope note about whole td_build batches. This is distinct from siblings like td_variant_restore, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied: call it when the last change should be reverted or redone. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or when to prefer a sibling tool like td_variant_restore.

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