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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/scope profile is covered; the description adds beyond that by disclosing the redo ordering ('oldest-undone last') and the important state fact that any new edit clears the redo buffer. It does not explain what happens when the stack is empty, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary purpose leads and the state caveat follows. Every clause carries actionable 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?

For a state-mutating tool with no output schema the description covers the undo relationship and the clearing behavior, which is good. However it omits any explanation of the lone 'steps' parameter and says nothing about the outcome when the redo stack is empty, leaving real gaps 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the single 'steps' parameter (integer, 1-20) is never mentioned in the description. An agent gets no explanation of what 'steps' controls, how many redo operations it applies, or its default when omitted, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Re-apply') and explicitly ties the resource to reverted tool calls, naming the sibling swebsy_undo as its counterpart. This lets an agent distinguish redo from undo without opening either schema. It falls short of 5 only because it never states the resource/domain (the design-editor state) in its own terms.

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 reference to 'tool calls reverted by swebsy_undo' clearly sets the precondition for use, and 'Cleared by any new edit' tells the agent when the tool will no longer have anything to act on. There is no explicit when-not or alternative beyond undo, which is implied, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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