rhino_undo

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the description. The description adds the scoping detail 'last operation', which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., if there is no operation to undo) or whether the undo can be reversed via redo. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without any wasted words. Every element earns its place; no extraneous details or redundant phrasing.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple action, the description is sufficient to guide an agent. The output schema presumably documents the return value, so the description need not elaborate. It covers the core intent and scope adequately for this level of complexity.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly avoids over-explaining parameters that don't exist.

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 clearly states the verb 'Undo' and the resource 'last operation in Rhino', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rhino_redo (opposite action) and other commands that modify geometry. No ambiguity exists about what this tool does.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: after an undesired operation, to revert the most recent change. While it does not mention alternatives (like rhino_redo) or explicit exclusions, the context is clear enough for a tool this simple. The condition 'last operation' is a direct usage signal.

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