rhino_undo

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotation by stating that MCP tool changes are automatically grouped into undo records and that each step reverses one record. However, it does not disclose potential destructive effects, whether undo can be reversed via redo, or what happens when there are no undoable operations.

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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds essential grouping semantics without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, the step semantics, and the MCP-specific grouping behavior. The main gap is not mentioning the closely related rhino_cmd_undo and rhino_redo tools, but no critical call-time information is missing.

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 already describes the 'steps' parameter as 'Number of operations to undo,' but the tool description adds the important nuance that one step equals one undo record and that MCP changes are batched automatically. This helps prevent the misconception that steps count each individual MCP tool call.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Undo the last operation(s) in the Rhino document,' and clarifies that each step maps to one undo record. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from the closely related sibling rhino_cmd_undo or reference rhino_redo.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_redo or rhino_cmd_undo. The intended use is implied, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative-tool references are provided.

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