undo

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

No annotations provided; description discloses that it rolls back timeline and returns state before/after, but does not detail implications like irreversible operations or impact on future timeline states. More behavioral context would aid the agent.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately addresses the primary parameter use and return value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential actions and return. However, it omits edge cases like exceeding available undo steps or empty timeline, and could benefit from more safety/limitation context.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (count) well-described. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly restating the count usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Undo operation(s) by rolling back the design timeline,' specifying a concrete action and resource. It differentiates from siblings (e.g., redo) by focusing on reversal of prior operations.

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 description mentions using 'count to undo multiple steps' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., redo or other modification tools). It lacks guidance on preconditions or edge cases.

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