Undo the last change

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by spelling out the three mutation outcomes, but it omits whether an undo is itself undoable, what error or response occurs when there is no change to revert, and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by the concrete cases that disambiguate what 'revert' means here. Nothing is redundant, though the enumerated effect list is slightly dense for the amount of decision-relevant information it adds.

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-parameter, fully documented schema with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers intent and effect scope. It still leaves gaps a mutation tool without annotations should address: failure when there is nothing to undo, ordering of multi-step reversal, and what the result reports back.

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%, so the description only needs to add meaning to 'steps'. 'Multiple steps can be undone in a row' does clarify that batched reversal is supported and that steps counts distinct recent changes, which is slightly more than the schema's one-line param description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reverts the last change made by the server') and then enumerates the three concrete effects (restore from backup, remove a created file, restore from trash). That makes the tool's scope unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_path, which plausibly overlaps with the third case.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is the tool to call when a recent change should be reverted, reinforced by 'Multiple steps can be undone in a row'. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what happens when nothing has been changed, and no routing to restore_path or list_trash as alternatives.

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