undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that one call equals one undo step but lacks details about undo stack limits, what happens if no operations are available, or whether undo is session-scoped. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, and the key points (undo last operation, one-to-one mapping with MCP calls) are front-loaded.

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, one action), the description covers the core purpose but omits details about the output (though an output schema exists) and potential edge cases. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to handle all scenarios.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly notes the absence of parameters implicitly. With 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; no further elaboration needed.

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 purpose: undoing the last atomic operation in SketchUp. It provides a specific verb ('undo') and resource ('atomic operation'), and uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools (which are all operations that could be undone).

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 implies usage after performing an MCP tool-call (one undo step per call) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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