undo_last_setting_change

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the pop-and-replay mechanism, impact on hotkeys/renderer/engine, and error return (404 with clean message) when history is empty. Fully transparent about internal behavior.

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?

Description is compact with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, behavior, limitations. Could be slightly tightened but remains informative without redundancy.

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 no parameters, annotations, or output schema, the description covers all needed context: trigger phrases, list of undoable operations, behavior details, error handling, and constraints (no raw writes). Entirely sufficient for an agent to use 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?

No parameters exist, so schema_coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter details; it appropriately focuses on tool behavior and scope. The listing of undoable tools adds context but doesn't affect parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states the tool reverts the most recent catalog-validated setting change. The verb 'revert' and specific resource 'catalog-validated setting change' make the purpose unambiguous. Distinguished from siblings as the only undo tool among many set_* tools.

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?

Explicitly provides usage triggers (user says 'undo', 'undo that', etc.) and includes a list of which tools are undoable. Also states what cannot be undone (raw /config writes), giving clear guidance on when to use vs. avoid.

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