undo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action but omits critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, what exactly gets undone (e.g., which command types), whether the namespace modifies scope, and what happens if no command exists to undo. This is insufficient for a state-altering operation.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and has no wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose, but it omits how the 'namespace' parameter affects behavior and does not cover edge cases like undo history limits or error states. The description is minimally acceptable but leaves contextual gaps.

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%, with the 'namespace' parameter having a description ('Target tab namespace'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema description itself is terse but sufficient for the single optional parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Undo' and names the resource 'the last command in the Splice frontend', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'redo' and 'execute_command'. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 implies usage (when you want to revert the last command) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'undo' vs 'redo', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The 'namespace' parameter hints at targeting specific tabs, but its role is not explained in the description.

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