Propose reversing an applied plan as an undo plan that requires approval before execution.
Propose reversing an applied plan. The undo is itself a plan that needs approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the undo is not executed directly but is a proposal requiring approval, which explains why a write-hinted tool is non-destructive. It still omits what happens on rejection or who approves.
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?
Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the important workflow caveat second. No 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 one-parameter proposal tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential non-obvious fact (approval-gated undo). Only the meaning of the response and approval flow are left unstated, which is minor here.
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% and the single param plan_id is undocumented, but the description's use of 'an applied plan' implies plan_id identifies which plan to reverse. It doesn't confirm the identifier semantics or the expected format, leaving a small gap over the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('propose reversing an applied plan'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling propose_budget_change and propose_status_change. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 line 'The undo is itself a plan that needs approval' implies this is the entry point for reversing an applied plan and that a separate approval step follows, but it never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_plan to inspect first) or any precondition like the plan having actually been applied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.