godot_undo

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

Annotations provide little help: readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint are all false, leaving the description to carry the burden. The description is minimal and does not disclose that undo is not idempotent, may have side effects on the editor state, or that it only works in the editor context.

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, grammatically clean sentence that states the action and scope. No filler or redundancy. Front-loads the key verb 'trigger' and names the specific editor context.

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 has an output schema, so return values aren't the issue. However, the description omits important contextual details such as editor-only availability, the relationship with godot_redo, and potential errors when no undo history exists. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — the tool description does not mention history_id at all. While the JSON schema does provide a description for the parameter ('Optional history ID to undo on...'), the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage, and an agent reading only the description would not know the parameter exists.

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 clearly states the tool 'triggers undo' on the 'active Godot Editor undo/redo manager' — a specific verb and resource. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling godot_redo, so it doesn't fully clarify the undo/redo pairing.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like godot_redo, nor any mention of preconditions (e.g., whether an undo history must exist, or if it must be called from the editor). The reader must infer usage from the name and context.

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