undo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The phrase 'the last action' usefully reveals single-level undo depth rather than a full history stack, but the description says nothing about reversibility via redo, error behavior on empty history, or which project is affected when the parameter is omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted above rather than being paired with it.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a state-mutating tool with one undocumented optional parameter the description omits project scoping, empty-history behavior, and the redo relationship. Too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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 single 'project' parameter is nullable with a null default. The description never explains what an omitted/null project means (presumably the currently open project) or what values are accepted, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Undo') and resource scope ('the last action in a project'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'redo', which is the natural counterpart an agent will be choosing between.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'redo', no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens when there is nothing on the history stack to undo. Usage is only implied by the word 'undo' itself.

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