Undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scope of what undo covers (changes made through this server, and which operation types), which is real context. However it does not state whether the undo is itself reversible, how deep the history is, or what happens when the limit is hit — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no filler; the parenthetical enumeration is compact and earns its place by defining undo scope.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and undo scope but omits the behavioral details an agent needs: irreversibility, history depth, and the semantics of the undocumented 'steps' parameter.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single 'steps' parameter. The phrase 'last change(s)' weakly hints that multiple changes can be reverted, but the default of 1, the minimum of 1, and the maximum of 50 are left entirely to the schema with 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?

It states a specific verb (revert) and scopes the resource precisely to changes made through this server, then enumerates exactly which sibling operations are undoable (run_commands, set_style, delete, clear, snapshot restore). An agent can distinguish this from the mutation siblings without opening any schema.

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 — call it to reverse a prior change — and the enumerated undoable operations clarify the context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do if the undo history is empty or exhausted.

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