undo_last

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by specifying that it undoes only the last committed action and only in the active document, but it does not explain repeatability, error behavior, or whether the undo is itself reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part of it contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with annotations covering its destructive nature and an output schema available. The description sufficiently explains the scope, though it could mention behavior when no action is available to undo.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Undoes') and resource ('the last committed action') with clear scope ('in the active Revit document'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool.

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 defines what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or alternatives. Usage is only inferred from the tool's purpose.

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