wb_live_redo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the important trait that this is a dry-run by default and only mutates when apply=true. It omits other relevant behavior: what happens when the redo stack is empty, whether the redo is reversible, and what 'Preview/history check' actually returns or prints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the safety rule, with no filler. The 'Preview/history check' phrasing is slightly ambiguous about what the check consists of, which keeps it from being maximally clear.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical apply/default distinction but leaves the required rpc_dir, the timeout semantics, and the dry-run output format unexplained. It is adequate to avoid a dangerous misuse but not complete enough to call confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it only explains apply. The required rpc_dir and the timeout parameter receive no explanation anywhere, leaving the agent without guidance on a mandatory input.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Redo one World Builder history action'), which distinguishes it clearly from the undo-style sibling and from the read-only history/state tools. It stops short of naming wb_live_undo or wb_live_history, so the inverse relationship is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Preview/history check unless apply=true' provides a usable usage rule: default is a non-mutating check and apply=true performs the redo. However, it does not explicitly point to wb_live_undo for the opposite operation or to wb_live_history for inspecting what would be redone, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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