undo_material_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds real context beyond them: the reversibility scope (materials/parameters only), the recency ordering, and the reassurance that non-undoable graph edits touch only copies. It does not mention whether there is any redo path or how far back the history goes.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior and the parameter semantics front-loaded before the scope caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 (return values need no explanation) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining burden is scope and parameter meaning, both addressed. A minor gap: no note on how much history is retained or whether the undo can itself be reverted.

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 0% (the `all` boolean has no description), so the description carries the load and does it well: `all=false` means only the most recent change is reverted, implying `all=true` reverts all. One sentence fully disambiguates the only parameter.

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 (undo) applied to a specific resource (materials assigned and parameters set by the bridge), plus the ordering (most recent first). It also explicitly bounds the scope by excluding graph editing (nodes, connections), which separates it cleanly from siblings like add_material_node or connect_material_nodes.

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?

Explains the two use modes via `all` (undo everything vs. only the last change) and states a clear when-not: graph edits are not undoable, so the agent should not call this expecting to revert node/branch changes. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for that case, which keeps it from a 5.

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