undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral facts: the undo history is server-scoped and capped at 50 per file. It does not say whether the file on disk is rewritten, whether undo is itself reversible via redo, or what error/behavior occurs when the cap is hit.

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 filler; the parenthetical cap is the only extra clause and it does add information. Slightly tighter phrasing could clarify that the cap is on undo depth rather than edits per call.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential capability and scope but omits post-undo state (is the file saved? is redo now available?) and any explanation of the 'steps' argument. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps.

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% and neither parameter is documented. The description implies a history limit of 50 that relates to the 'steps' parameter, but it never explains that 'steps' selects how many edits to roll back or what 'path' should point to, so an agent must guess at the multi-step behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (undo) and resource (the last edits made through this server to a file), plus a concrete scope bound of 50 undo levels per file. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like redo or view by the plain meaning of 'undo', though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'edits made through this server' is an implicit precondition (only server-tracked edits can be undone), which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over redo, or what happens once the 50-step history is exhausted — usage must be inferred.

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