autocad_undo

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent/non-readonly, and the description goes further by disclosing the backend dependency, the live-session requirement, and the exact failure mode (NotImplementedError) with ezdxf. That error and environment behavior is information the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its key constraint, then structured Args/Returns blocks. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is confusing or padded.

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?

Covers the operation, backend requirement, parameter bounds, and error behavior; an output schema exists, so the return explanation is a bonus rather than a necessity. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor redundancy in the Returns section.

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 description coverage is reported at 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: it names the UndoInput wrapper, the 'steps' field, its type, default of 1, and max of 50. The default and max duplicate the schema constraints, so it compensates for coverage without adding much new syntax detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Undo the last N operations') and immediately narrows scope with 'COM backend only'. No sibling tool in the list performs undo, so the purpose is unambiguous within the toolset.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: it only works on a live AutoCAD session with the COM backend, and is documented to fail under ezdxf. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling covers this operation, so the only real gap is the absence of explicit 'when not to use' framing beyond the backend constraint.

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