redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what happens when there is nothing to redo (error vs. no-op), whether the redo stack survives a new edit, or whether the restore is scoped to the given project.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it leaves content gaps rather than wasted words.

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 an unannotated mutation-style tool with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell how failures or no-op cases behave, or what 'project' should contain.

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 single required parameter 'project' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so its meaning (project ID vs. name, and why redo is project-scoped) must be inferred. With only one param, a brief clause would have closed this 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 and effect: 'Redo the last undone edit', which is clearly distinct from the sibling 'undo'. It does not explicitly name the sibling or note that it operates within a single project, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'redo' — reuse of a reverted edit. There is no guidance on when to prefer 'undo', 'history', or direct edit tools, and no statement of preconditions such as whether an undone edit must exist.

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