Pop Undo Stack

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation ('pop'), the early-stop edge case ('stops early if the stack empties'), and the return value ('steps_performed'). It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but these are minor for a simple undo operation.

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?

Three tightly written sentences; the core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information (operation, edge case, return value/default). No filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the return behavior, the default, and the edge case. The only thing not stated is the exact type of the return value, which is inferable. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds nuance beyond the schema: it clarifies that `steps` is a maximum ('up to') and explains the parameter's relationship to the return value. It also confirms the default of 1.

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 ('Pop') and resource ('active document's undo stack'), and references doc.DoUndo to make the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that edit or save documents, even though no direct 'redo' sibling exists.

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 does not explicitly state when to use the tool or name alternatives. The context 'active document's undo stack' implies usage for reverting changes, but no direct guidance is given beyond that. Since there are no sibling undo/redo tools, the lack of explicit alternatives is a minor gap.

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