undo

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, yet it discloses nothing about whether undo is stack-based, how many steps it can rewind, whether it is scoped per-project, or whether it is reversible. 'Undo the last edit' is a restatement of the name with no added behavioral 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than optimally balanced.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it reliably. It should at least clarify the 'project' argument and the scope/limits of the undo action.

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 single 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent cannot tell whether omitting 'project' means the current project or a global undo, which is a meaningful semantic gap for a destructive-ish operation.

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 (undo) and a bounded scope (the last edit). Its inverse sibling 'redo' is implicitly distinguishable, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use undo versus redo, or any prerequisite such as needing a prior edit to exist. The agent must infer the relationship to the 'redo' sibling on its own.

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