undo_last_organize

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it does not delete copies but moves them to _trash, implying reversibility. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent of the non-permanent nature. No contradiction with annotations, and the added detail is meaningful.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a critical behavioral caveat. No extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no required inputs, the description fully explains what it does, how the parameter behaves, and the outcome (trash instead of delete). The output schema is provided separately, so no need to explain return values. The agent has all information needed to call it correctly.

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 only parameter, journal_path, is fully documented in the schema with its default behavior (empty = most recent). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter. It only indirectly references '지정한' (specified) without elaborating, so it meets the baseline but adds no value.

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 'reverts the most recent (or specified) organize run' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like apply_organize and preview_organize by indicating it performs the inverse operation. The added detail about moving to _trash rather than deleting further clarifies its behavior.

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 makes the use case obvious: to undo an organize operation. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear from the sibling tool names (organize tools vs. this undo tool). The mention of specifying a journal path gives a usage hint, though it doesn't explain when to use this over other tools.

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