project_save_undo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state that the tool mutates the undo stack by adding a named entry. However, it does not describe side effects on existing undo history, the meaning or behavior of the flags parameter, or what happens if no batch edit follows.

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 states the operation and its timing with no filler. It is compact and scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple, and the core required parameter is inferable from the description, but the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves important context uncovered: what the flags parameter controls, and what a successful push returns or changes in the undo universe. The description is adequate for a minimal call but not fully complete.

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 schema documents two parameters but provides 0% prose coverage and no descriptions; the phrase 'named entry' maps to the required name parameter but says nothing about flags. Even by implication, flags' integer/bitmask behavior is left entirely undefined, which the description fails to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb ('Push') and resource ('named entry onto the undo stack'), and the phrase 'before a batch edit' positions it as a pre-mutation checkpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling utilities like project_undo, project_redo, and project_undo_history.

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?

It states the intended call time — before a batch edit — giving an agent a clear precondition for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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