revert_to_last_solvable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies a mutation operation that changes state, but the description doesn't specify what gets restored (e.g., level configuration, game state), whether it requires specific conditions, what happens to unsaved changes, or what the expected outcome looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core function without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'solvable state' in a level-editing context, the absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'solvable state', how it differs from other states, or what happens after restoration, leaving the agent with incomplete operational understanding.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for parameter-less tools.

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 'Restore the latest known solvable state' clearly states the action (restore) and target (latest known solvable state), which is specific and meaningful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'undo' or 'restore_published_level', which might have overlapping restoration functions in this level-editing context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. In a context with many sibling tools including 'undo', 'redo', and 'restore_published_level', there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or comparative use cases for this specific restoration operation.

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