catia_undo

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, but the description adds valuable context that it is best-effort and that CATIA provides no way to confirm how far the stack rewound. This goes beyond the destructive hint and sets accurate expectations for the agent.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and then the caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential caveat about best-effort execution. It provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly, though it could optionally mention which document it applies to, but that is not necessary.

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 fully describes the only parameter ('times' – 'How many steps to undo'), with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Undo the last operation(s) in CATIA' – a specific verb and resource. It inherently distinguishes from the sibling catia_redo by the action, and the phrase 'best-effort' adds specificity without confusion.

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 description mentions the best-effort nature and lack of confirmation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like catia_redo. The intended usage is implied but not directly articulated, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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