Undo command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it reports the undone command, scopes the operation to the open project's history, and discloses boundary behavior for saves and the resource pool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the boundaries. Mostly efficient, though 'including changes made in the user interface' is slightly opaque and adds little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers scope and edge cases well; only the minor opening ambiguity keeps it from full marks.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or obscure, and 'One undo step' usefully signals that a single call performs exactly one step.

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+resource (undo the last command in the open project's history) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the redo sibling and from save-undo. The opening phrase 'Undoes the last undo step' is mildly ambiguous (it could read as a redo), but the following sentences resolve it.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (walks the command history of the open project), when-not (not a way to undo a save; the resource pool has no undo step and instead closes the unit of work without saving), and names the alternative path (rillsoft_history_redo). Nothing is left to inference.

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