undo_edits

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. It does add one genuinely useful trait — undo history is bounded to ten batches, implying failure after enough edits — but says nothing about permissions, whether the restore is itself reversible, or what happens when no history exists.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the history-limit detail. Brevity here tips toward under-specification, but structurally the text is efficient.

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 state-mutating undo tool with no annotations and two wholly undocumented required parameters, the description leaves key facts missing: which design's edits are affected, what a revision argument means, and failure conditions. The output schema covers return values, but the input and behavioral sides are under-described.

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?

Both parameters ('design', 'revision') are required with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions them. It is unclear whether 'revision' identifies the batch to undo, the target revision, or a revision string format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Restore the previous committed edit batch'), which is more than a tautology and lets an agent grasp the operation. However, it never ties itself to the sibling edit tools (edit_parts, edit_connections) whose batches it presumably reverts, so differentiation from siblings depends on inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to invoke this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g., an existing edit batch to revert), and no mention of edit_parts/edit_connections as the operations it undoes. Usage is only implied by the word 'undo'.

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