photoshop_history_undo

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

Annotations indicate non-idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds little beyond that. 'Uses the same catalog policy and verification pipeline' hints at safety checks but does not disclose what the undo action actually does, whether it is reversible, or what state changes occur.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core fact that this is a convenience tool. The second sentence adds context but is vague. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the content could be more informative.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the main gap is the operational context. The description does not clarify what 'history.undo' does, what conditions are needed (e.g., an active document), or how it relates to the broader command execution flow. The tool is underspecified for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters. Baseline of 4 applies for no-parameter tools.

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 identifies the tool as a convenience wrapper for 'history.undo', implying an undo operation, but it does not explicitly state the effect (e.g., 'reverts the last change'). It lacks a clear verb+resource statement and does not differentiate from siblings like photoshop_command_execute.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions 'same catalog policy and verification pipeline' but does not explain when this convenience tool is preferred, nor does it state exclusions or conditions.

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