history

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it quantifies the granularity of undo (one step per writing call), documents the exceptions (track rename and device parameter writes consume extra steps), discloses the global scope that reaches manual user edits, and states what is returned. Annotations only supply the destructive/non-idempotent profile; the description supplies the semantics.

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?

The action is front-loaded in the first two words and every clause carries operational value, but the long parenthetical about track renames and parameter writes makes the middle sentence dense and slightly run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (names of what was undone plus whether more undo/redo is available). Combined with the granularity rules and global-scope warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and both parameters are already described in the schema, including the 1-50, default 1 range. The description merely restates 'steps repeats it', so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and scope: 'Undo or redo in Live.' It also frames the tool against the rest of the writing tools by explaining that each writing call is one undo step, which distinguishes it from every sibling mutation tool.

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 warns that undo is global and reverts the user's manual edits, so 'use it deliberately' – a clear when-to-be-cautious instruction. It does not name a named alternative tool, but the caution covers the main usage decision.

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