undo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds that only the most recent change is reverted (single-step undo) and that it spans board or schematic editors, but says nothing about what happens when there is no change to undo or whether deeper history exists.

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 sentence, no filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded. Every word 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 low-complexity tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential action and scope. It is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (nothing to undo, multi-step history) is left unstated.

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 single 'editor' parameter has 0% schema description coverage (default 'board'), so the description carries the burden. It names 'board or schematic editor', which partially communicates the accepted values, but does not state the exact literal strings or the default behavior.

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?

Clear specific verb (undo) plus the affected scope (last change in the board or schematic editor), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from nearby mutation/removal siblings such as rip_up, which also removes prior work, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by 'the last change', which makes the tool self-evidently a revert action, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like rip_up or route_close. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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