undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does very little with it. It does not say whether undo is single-level or multi-level, whether the undone edit can be recovered via redo, or what happens when there is nothing to undo.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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 described, and the zero-parameter schema needs no explanation. However, for a mutation-style tool with no annotations, the description omits failure conditions and the undo/redo relationship, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to compensate for and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the text misrepresents the empty schema.

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?

A specific verb (undo) plus a scoped resource (the last draft edit), so the agent knows this reverts a single prior change rather than a whole document. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like redo or reset_draft, which would be the final step to a 5.

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 only implied: an agent should call it after an unwanted draft edit. There is no statement of when not to call it, or that redo is the counterpart for re-applying an undone change, leaving the agent to infer routing among undo/redo/reset_draft.

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