Undo applied copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys the restore action and the empty-post_ids semantics, but it does not warn that restoring likely overwrites or discards the current applied copy, which would be valuable for this mutation-like 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?

One compact sentence delivers the core behavior and the one important edge case. There is no filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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 one-parameter undo tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter semantics well. Missing details such as whether a backup must already exist or whether the restoration is reversible are notable but not crippling given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema provides no description for post_ids, so the description's clarification that an empty value means all backed-up pages adds real meaning. It does not explain what individual IDs map to, but for a single optional parameter this is adequate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Restore the pre-apply backup of the given pages'. It also clarifies the edge-case scope, 'all backed-up pages when post_ids is empty', and clearly distinguishes this as the inverse of sweipe_brief_apply.

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 'pre-apply backup' phrasing and the sibling sweipe_brief_apply make the intended use-after-apply undo scenario clear. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently orienting for a dedicated undo tool.

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