Undo Last

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not responsible for that. It adds the useful context that only the 'last recorded mutation' is reverted, which clarifies scope. However, it does not mention edge cases like what happens if no mutation exists or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single sentence that is concise, direct, and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 two parameters, good schema coverage, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks nuance about failure conditions or return values, but the core purpose and scope are clear. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the simplicity of the operation.

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 100%, with both 'node_id' and 'project' described in the schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 the action ('Revert') and the resource ('last recorded mutation for a specific node'). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'revert_to_timestamp' or 'update_node', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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