undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that undo is tied to Blender's UI history, that it reverses whatever happened last including the user's own edits, and that checkpoints are safer for rollbacks. This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover edge cases like exhausting 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. It communicates the core behavior, a key caveat, and guidance to an alternative without unnecessary detail.

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 and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the key behavioral nuance and points to a safer alternative for reliable rollbacks.

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 single parameter 'steps' is self-descriptive and the schema provides default, minimum, and maximum constraints. However, the description does not explicitly explain how steps relates to the undo operation, and schema description coverage is 0%, so it doesn't add meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Step back through Blender's undo history.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from checkpoints by explicitly noting that undo reflects UI history and reverses whatever happened last, which distinguishes it from reliable rollback via checkpoints.

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 explicit guidance: use undo for stepping back through Blender's UI history, and prefer checkpoints for reliably rolling back your own work. This names the alternative and gives a clear condition for when not to rely on undo.

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