pocketdraft_history

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one valuable non-annotation trait ('saves atomically before moving history') plus the revision-as-concurrency-guard precondition, but it omits what the destructive undo does to the redo stack or how a stale revision is rejected.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the operation and its source entry are front-loaded, followed immediately by the required inputs and the atomic-save behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the atomic-save and precondition notes help. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with four required 0%-documented parameters, it leaves gaps around stale-revision errors, projectId's role, and the effects of undo on subsequent history.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains entryId provenance (returned by inspect) and that revision must be current, which is real added meaning, but it says nothing about projectId and only implies the action enum. Two of four required parameters remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb pair (undo/redo) and resource (history entry), and ties it to the inspect tool that produces the target entry, which separates it from list/inspect siblings. It falls short of 5 only because the referenced sibling is named generically as 'inspect' while the actual sibling is pocketdraft_inspect_project.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: the entry must be exactly the one returned by inspect, and it must be driven by that entry's entryId plus the current revision. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions (e.g. stale revision behavior) are stated, so it stops at 4.

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