screenstudio_editor_history

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this manipulates the editor's own history (as opposed to project files), which is useful context, but says nothing about reversibility of redo, or how the 'steps' batching behaves.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but it wastes nothing.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at least clarify projectPath and step semantics. As written it covers only the high-level action, leaving key invocation details to inference.

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% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The 'action' enum (undo/redo) is self-explanatory in the schema, but 'projectPath' and 'steps' (with its default of 1 and max of 200) are left entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Step') and resource ('the editor's own undo/redo history'), reinforced by a concrete analogy ('like pressing Cmd+Z'). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't name the potentially confusable sibling screenstudio_editor_restore to differentiate itself.

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 Cmd+Z analogy implies the general usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison against alternatives like screenstudio_editor_restore or screenstudio_editor_apply. An agent must infer when this is preferred over those.

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