undo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that it affects the undo stack of a view, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose side effects like whether undone steps are permanently lost or whether the view must be active. No contradiction with annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is minimal. It explains the core action and the 'steps' parameter, but omits what 'id' refers to, what happens after undo, and any confirmation or error behavior. It is adequate for a simple operation but not fully complete.

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 compensate. It explains the 'steps' parameter conceptually ('last N history steps') but does not describe the 'id' parameter or its format. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves the key identifier parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('last N history steps of a view'), and clarifies it operates on the PixInsight undo stack. It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings; the sibling list contains no other undo-like tool, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 description implies usage context (undoing history steps in a view) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer when this is appropriate.

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