undo

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior—undoing the last action—but does not disclose edge cases such as whether repeated calls undo multiple actions, whether there is an undo history limit, or whether the operation can be reversed. This is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence: 'Undo the last action in Live.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless tool, and the description covers its primary purpose. An output schema exists to handle return-value details. However, it omits context about undo history semantics (e.g., multiple undo steps, interaction with redo), which would make it fully complete for an agent.

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 and the input schema is empty, which is fully described. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 tool's function: 'Undo the last action in Live.' This is a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('the last action in Live'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'redo' or other state-changing tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when not to use it, nor does it reference related tools such as 'redo' or explain the undo history behavior. Only the implied purpose of undoing is present.

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