draft_undo

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

Annotations correctly mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description doesn't contradict that. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: only the LAST pick can be undone, not an arbitrary one. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation, or what happens when there is no pick to undo.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but that shortfall is better accounted for under completeness than conciseness.

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 zero-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the bare minimum: what it changes and which record it targets. It omits meaningful edge-condition context an agent would want, such as required draft state, behavior when no pick exists, and whether the undo is reversible.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There are no arguments for the description to explain, and it correctly implies the target is implicit (the most recent pick).

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 ('Undo') and a precise resource ('the last recorded draft pick'), which is enough to distinguish it from the pick-adding siblings like draft_pick or draft_board. It doesn't name an explicit sibling or clarify boundary cases (e.g., whether it works during mock vs live drafts), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., an active draft must exist), and no mention of alternatives if the intent is something other than reversing the most recent pick. Usage can only be inferred from the verb.

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