palinode_correction_undo

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavioral details: preview mode reports what would be restored, what would not be deleted, and what cannot be reached; apply mode requires confirm and expect_revision; and the tool refuses to resurrect retracted or withdrawn records. These details are consistent with the annotations and add substantial 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?

The description is reasonably front-loaded and dense with useful information, with the default preview behavior stated first. It is slightly verbose in the middle sentence, but every major clause contributes to safe and correct invocation.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, preview versus apply behavior, required procedural parameters, expected restoration effect, and refusal conditions. Annotations already cover safety hints, and the description fills the remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds procedural meaning by tying confirm and expect_revision together and clarifying that expect_revision comes from the preview. This helps an agent understand the intended parameter workflow beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 and resource: undoing a correction, with a clear preview/apply split. It also distinguishes this operation from related but different actions such as deleting history or undoing external agent actions, which helps separate it from sibling tools like restore or forget_withdraw.

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 clearly explains when to use preview mode versus write mode: without confirm it reads, and with confirm plus expect_revision it applies. It also states a refusal condition, but it does not name sibling tools to use instead for related operations.

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