redo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing about what gets discarded, whether the call fails or no-ops when nothing is available to redo, or what expected_revision guards against. For a state-mutating history operation this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue here.

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-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without the revision-guard contract, session scoping, or failure behavior. Terms like 'combined history entry' are unexplained jargon.

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 required parameters, and the description never references any of them. Critically, 'expected_revision' is clearly an optimistic-concurrency token and 'browser_session_id' versus 'map_session_id' are two distinct session scopes, none of which is explained anywhere.

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 (redo) and a specific target (the editor's latest combined history entry), which is enough to distinguish it from the read/list siblings. It stops short of naming its counter-operation 'undo', so the pairing must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus undo, no prerequisite such as 'only valid immediately after an undo', and no mention of what to do when the redo stack is empty. The agent must guess the ordering semantics.

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