cw_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it states that reading changes nothing, that selecting an older row and confirming rewinds to that point and DISCARDS everything after it, and that the stack is depth-limited (~128 entries) with silent drops. These are exactly the safety and side-effect facts an agent needs before touching an undo history.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action (which dialog, which command ID) followed by ordering, destructive behavior, alternative, and limits. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what comes back; it explains the dialog contents and oldest-first row ordering, which lets an agent infer the report, but does not describe the result format explicitly. Given the tool has no parameters and rich safety/limit disclosures, the coverage is otherwise strong.

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, so the schema carries no semantic load and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no words on parameters.

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 and resource — open the Edit > History dialog (0x8044) and report how to read/use the undo stack — and immediately distinguishes it from its nearest sibling by naming cw_undo for single-step rewinds. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening any schema.

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 routes single-step undo to cw_undo and frames this tool as the one place the write history is legible rather than inferred, which is a clear use case. It stops short of a full when/when-not rule set (e.g., no guidance on when inspecting history is warranted versus just redoing), but the alternative routing is unambiguous.

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