workflow.undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool reverts to a previous state, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, limitations (e.g., only one undo level), error conditions, or what 'previous state' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, as it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits like side effects or constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal but covers purpose and usage. However, for a mutation tool ('undo'), it lacks details on behavioral aspects like what happens on failure or if no changes exist, making it incomplete for safe agent invocation. It's adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine, but it could have mentioned any implicit context (e.g., requires an active workflow). Baseline is 4 since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't detract from this.

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 target ('last workflow change'), specifying it reverts nodes, edges, and drawing data. It distinguishes from siblings like 'workflow.redo' by focusing on reversal, though not explicitly named. However, it's slightly less specific than a perfect 5, which would explicitly name alternatives.

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 clear context for usage ('when changes need to be reverted or the user asks to undo'), which helps guide when to invoke this tool. It implies an alternative ('workflow.redo' from siblings) but doesn't explicitly name it or detail when-not scenarios, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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