archicad_undo

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real semantic content beyond that: what destruction means (deletes created objects, restores changed ones) and that it is scoped to the open project. It omits irreversibility, whether the revert can itself be undone, and behavior when nothing is available to revert.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, though the middle is a long roster of tool names. The payoff clause lands at the end; still, every element is load-bearing and nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but return values are implied by the described effect, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nearly sufficient for a destructive single-param tool, missing only edge-case behavior (empty history, failure modes).

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 coverage is 100% with a single self-documented 'steps' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description never references the parameter or clarifies the granularity of an undo 'step' relative to the enumerated operations.

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 ('reverts') and enumerates precisely which sibling-created actions it undoes, plus the concrete effect ('deletes what they created and restores what they changed'). An agent can distinguish this from archicad_history or individual creation tools without opening a 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?

The description establishes a clear usage context: it applies to the actions of a named set of mutation tools within the open project. It does not name an alternative (e.g. archicad_history) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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