fgui_undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the priority/fallback behavior, adding value. However, it leaves ambiguous details such as whether undo is single-step, what happens when there is nothing to undo, and the exact definition of 'transaction stack'.

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 concise front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, effectively communicating the essential behavior.

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?

While the description covers the core undo behavior and fallback, it does not explain the concepts of 'Agent attribute transactions' or the transaction stack, which could be ambiguous to an AI agent. With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere, but the behavioral edge cases are not specified.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool performs undo operations, prioritizing agent property transactions and falling back to native FairyGUI undo. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fgui_redo (opposite action) and fgui_get_history (viewing history).

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 description implicitly defines when to use this tool (to undo) and explains the decision logic: it tries agent transactions first, then native undo. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the redo tool is an obvious opposite.

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