unity_redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Redo the last undone operation' without mentioning side effects, what happens if there is nothing to redo, or any prerequisites. The port parameter description adds some transparency about instance routing, but overall behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's action without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could slightly benefit from additional context. No structural issues.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description lacks important context for correct usage, such as behavior when there is nothing to redo, that it must follow an undo, or how it interacts with undo history. Sibling tools like 'unity_undo' and 'unity_undo_history' are not referenced, which would help an agent differentiate and use correctly.

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% (one parameter with a detailed description explaining its purpose, source, and when to use). Since the schema already provides rich parameter semantics, the tool description does not need to add more. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema's coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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: 'Redo the last undone operation in Unity Editor.' It uses a specific verb ('Redo') and resource ('last undone operation'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unity_undo' (which undoes) and 'unity_undo_history' (which shows history).

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 an undo operation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must have undone something) or exclusion criteria. The port parameter description gives some context for parallel-safe routing, but not general usage guidelines.

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