Undo a change

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: what physically happens to added/removed/updated entities, that a removed thing is restored 'with everything it had', and that undo is itself undoable. Permission requirements and rate limits are unstated.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the per-operation effects and the no-argument default. Slightly dense/elliptical phrasing ('Undoing an undo puts it back again'), but nearly every clause carries information.

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 single-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the reversal semantics, and default targeting. It omits error/permission behavior and what happens if no undoable change exists, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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% so the id parameter is already documented, but the description adds the crucial default semantics for omitting it ('the newest change that can still be undone'), which the schema alone does not convey. This is meaningful value on top of structured data.

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 precise verb+resource (reverse one change from the activity log) and then defines the semantics per operation type: added things removed, removed things restored with all their data, updates reverted. This is far more specific than the sibling mutation tools and lets an agent distinguish it immediately.

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 covers the two invocation modes: with an id (undoes that entry) and without an id (undoes the newest still-undoable change). It does not name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use undo, so it stops short of the top score.

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