nx_undo

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates only that an operation is reversed, but does not explain whether the undo is destructive, whether it applies only to MCP-created operations, what happens when there is nothing to undo, or what 'visible' means.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to scan.

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 low-complexity, parameterless tool with an output schema, the one-liner is largely adequate. However, the undefined 'visible' qualifier and lack of any note about undo-stack behavior or edge cases leave a small but meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero properties and is fully covered, so there are no parameters that need documentation. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are required; per the 0-parameter baseline, this is appropriate.

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 verb 'Undo' and the resource 'last visible NX MCP operation' clearly identify the action and target. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools (none of which are undo-like), though the qualifier 'visible' is not defined and weakens precision.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor on what conditions make an operation eligible for undo. The intent is implied by the name, but a caller receives no explicit situational context.

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