Undo Visual Mutation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's destructive. The description adds context about the types of mutations that can be undone (state ingestion vs transition edge addition), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the underlying data after undo, or whether the operation is reversible (though idempotentHint=false implies it isn't idempotent).

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. It could be expanded with usage guidance, but as written, it is appropriately concise for its content.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves out important details like the default behavior when 'type' is not provided, what constitutes the 'last' mutation, and how this tool differs from similar siblings. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers parameters, but the missing usage context lowers the completeness.

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 schema covers the 'type' parameter with a description and enum values, reaching 100% coverage. The description aligns with the enum but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. It doesn't explain the behavior when type is omitted, which would be valuable additional context.

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 (undo) and the resource (last visual state ingestion or transition edge addition). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like forget_state or restore_snapshot.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or limitations (e.g., what happens if no mutations have been made, or whether type is required). This is a significant gap given the number of sibling tools.

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