Undo a change

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

The description discloses a valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'Snapshots the current state first, so an undo can itself be undone.' This explains side effects and reversibility, which is important context given readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. No contradiction with annotations; destructiveHint=false is consistent with the reversible nature described.

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 description is three short sentences, each conveying essential information: the action, the default, and the side-effect. No filler or redundant wording, and the most important detail is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the operation, default behavior, and a key side-effect. It could mention return values (since there is no output schema), but the absence is minor given the simplicity and the presence of annotations providing safety context.

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 100%: the snapshot_id parameter is fully described in the schema ('Snapshot id from nuvio_list_undo. Omit to undo the most recent change.'). The tool description restates the default behavior but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Revert a previous change') and a mechanism ('using its snapshot'), with the default behavior also specified. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like nuvio_redo or nuvio_list_undo, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever you need to undo a previous change) and the schema adds that snapshot_id comes from nuvio_list_undo. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as pointing to nuvio_redo or nuvio_inspect_snapshot for related use cases.

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