vw_revert_last

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: what gets deleted vs restored, that restoration covers geometry, attributes, class, name, group and stacking position, that UUIDs change, and why repeated calls behave differently from Cmd-Z. One caveat: destructiveHint=false while the description says it deletes created objects — the description covers this by framing everything as a restore of prior state, so it is disclosed rather than contradicted.

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 core action in the first clause, followed by tightly packed but non-redundant qualifiers. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact (repeat behavior, Cmd-Z difference, exec_python exclusion, UUID change).

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does gesture at the return value ('new UUIDs returned in mapping'), which is enough to set expectations though the shape of that mapping is left vague. Scope, limits and caveats are otherwise fully covered for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there is none to add; the 'mapping' mention concerns the return value, not inputs.

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 scope: 'Undo exactly the last MCP write in the active document', then enumerates what that means (deletes created objects, restores changed/deleted ones, restores record fields). It also explicitly separates itself from raw vw_exec_python edits, which no sibling list entry does.

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 clear invocation guidance ('call repeatedly to step further back') and an explicit exclusion (raw vw_exec_python edits can't be reverted this way). It stops short of naming a full alternative workflow for non-MCP changes, so not a 5.

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