merge_undo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the two modes (list vs reverse) and uses the 'git reflog' analogy to imply safety, but it does not explicitly state whether reversing is destructive, what changes occur, or any prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose with a helpful analogy, and the second explains the optional parameter behavior. No filler words; all information is front-loaded and relevant.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one optional param) and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It could be more complete by describing the format of the listed operations (e.g., what fields appear), but for a straightforward tool, this is sufficient.

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% and the parameter description in the schema already explains the behavior (list if omitted, reverse if provided). The main description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool reverses a prior merge/supersede operation, using a specific verb 'Reverse' and resource 'merge/supersede operation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_candidates or plan_merge by focusing on undoing rather than planning or merging.

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 explicitly provides usage context: when operation_id is provided, it reverses that operation; when omitted, it lists the reversible operation log. It does not, however, specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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