Undo

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds the guard-rail semantics that annotations cannot express: default scope is limited to MCP-labelled entries and the call is aborted if the user changed something since. It does not say whether the undone entry is discarded or recoverable, which would be valuable for a destructive tool.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action comes first and the scope/refusal caveats follow immediately, which is the right ordering for a destructive operation.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, this covers action, default behavior, and failure condition. The only meaningful omission is what happens to the reverted change afterward (discarded, trashed, recoverable), which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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% but the schema only says 'Default true' for onlyIfMcp without explaining what the boolean controls. The description supplies that meaning, clarifying that the default restricts undo to MCP-originated changes and implying false widens the scope to any recent change.

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 precisely scoped resource (the most recent change in hive), and immediately narrows the scope to changes made through this MCP server. No sibling tool performs rollback, and the 'MCP:' labelling convention makes the target unambiguous.

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 gives a clear condition for use and, more importantly, an explicit refusal condition ('refuses if the user changed something since'), which tells the agent when the call will not succeed. It does not name an alternative tool for the non-MCP case, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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