Undo / redo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining effects like whether undo is destructive, whether it operates on the current document, or what happens to the history stack. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words, and the verb is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations; conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary detail, making it only barely adequate.

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 tool's complexity (undo/redo with a step count and action enum) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent would not know how to correctly invoke it, what happens on undo, or how to handle the step limit. Essential context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'steps' in the verb but does not clarify the meaning of the 'action' parameter or the 'steps' count semantics (e.g., how many steps are undone/redone). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 states a clear verb ('undoes or redoes') and a resource ('steps'), making the core purpose understandable. However, 'steps' is vague without domain context, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any sibling tools, though no direct alternative exists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when undo/redo is appropriate.

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