undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only restates the action. It does not disclose what happens if there is no edit to undo, whether the operation is destructive, whether multiple undos are supported, or how undo interacts with load_scene/save_scene.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately compact for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema plus no parameters, so a one-line definition is mostly adequate. However, the description leaves ambiguity around what 'last edit' covers and what happens with no prior edit, which are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema, which is already fully complete. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics need to be compensated for.

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 action ('Undo') and a clear target ('the last edit'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly define what counts as an 'edit' or contrast itself with sibling mutation tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'Undo the last edit' implies the tool is used after an edit has been made and needs reverting. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives such as re-applying a replaced object, so it only reaches implied-usage level.

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