rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral information by scoping to a single 'last mutating operation' (one level of undo, read operations excluded), but it is silent on irreversibility, what happens when there is nothing to roll back, and permissions.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target, containing no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description need not explain return values, but as a state-mutating operation with no annotations it should disclose failure behavior and whether the rollback is itself reversible. The 'last mutating operation' scoping helps but leaves these 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies since no parameter semantics are required.

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 gives a specific verb pair (rollback/undo) and names the exact target resource ('the last mutating operation in After Effects'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like getHistory. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'undo the last mutating operation' implies the context of use, and the scoping to mutating (not read) operations gives some routing value. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as getHistory or run-script, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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