editor_undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it undoes the last editor action, but does not disclose whether this is destructive, whether it can be undone itself, how far back the undo history goes, or what qualifies as an 'editor action'. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 short sentence that directly states the tool's function. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted content. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward undo operation.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and low complexity, the description is minimally sufficient to convey the basic function. However, it lacks important context about the scope of the editor undo history and any prerequisites (e.g., whether the editor must be running). It is not fully complete for an agent to use it confidently without additional assumptions.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameter meaning since there are none. The baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 action ('Undo') and the object ('last editor action'). It is specific enough to understand the primary purpose, although it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'editor_redo' or other editor operations. The verb+resource structure is concise and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, limitations, or mention of 'editor_redo' as the counterpart. The intended use is implied but not explicit, and there is no exclusionary context.

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