multiple_undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain what the tool does. It only says 'multiple undo' without clarifying how many steps are undone, whether it's a single command that undoes all changes, or if it requires any input. The destructive nature of undo is implied but not disclosed with specifics.

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?

The description is a single fragment under 10 words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to communicate function and could be mistaken for a label. It does not earn its place as a useful sentence.

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?

Even though this is a simple tool, the meaning of 'multiple undo' is ambiguous. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should specify the undo scope (e.g., number of steps, or to last save). The absence of this information makes the description incomplete.

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 0 parameters and the schema defines none. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to explain parameters. However, it also does not clarify whether 'multiple' implies any optional count, leaving minor ambiguity. Still, with no params, the schema is complete.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: multiple undo' essentially restates the tool name, using the same phrase 'multiple undo'. It does not provide a proper verb+object definition, such as 'Undoes multiple previous actions in the sequence'. It offers only a vague label, failing to distinguish itself beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'undo' or 'redo'. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where multiple undo is appropriate.

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