undo

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

With no annotations present, the description assumes the full behavioral burden and delivers: exact restoration for calendar changes, the specific reminder fields that are restored, the fields that are NOT restored (early-reminder and Urgent settings), and the conflict behavior (stops with a clear error, log entry stays undoable). This is unusual depth for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the mode semantics before the fidelity details. The reminder restoration list is long and dense, though each field name conveys real information about undo scope, so little could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description covers modes, restoration fidelity and failure semantics thoroughly. It stops short of describing what a successful undo returns or any permission requirements, which is the only remaining gap for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: entry_id is defined as an id from activity_log, batch is defined as undoing one bulk operation newest-first, and the default behavior when neither is supplied is stated. Nothing is left ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Undo a logged change") and immediately clarifies the relationship to activity_log, the sibling that produces entry_id. The three operating modes are enumerated, so an agent can distinguish this from any other sibling without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the three possible call shapes: entry_id for a single logged change, batch to undo one bulk operation newest-first, and neither to undo the most recent undoable change by anyone. This is a complete when-to-use map for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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