redo

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing the critical trap that `success` is ALWAYS true and that `applied` is the real oracle, plus the redo-stack-discard rule after any new edit. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the warning, then the return shape, so the most important information comes first. Slightly verbose in the warning clause, but every sentence carries non-redundant content.

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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description fully compensates by spelling out the field-level return shape and the semantic traps around success/applied and stack discard. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the return fields (applied, undo_count, can_redo, next_redo), which is helpful though technically return rather than parameter semantics.

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 precise verb ('Re-apply the transaction that undo just reverted') and ties the action to its counterpart, making the effect unmistakable. An agent can distinguish this single-step redo from sibling tools like undo, redo_multiple, and can_redo without opening any schema.

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 explains the failure condition (applied:false usually means a new edit discarded the stack) which is useful usage context, but it never names alternatives such as redo_multiple or can_redo, nor states explicitly when to prefer this over those siblings. Usage is implied rather than enumerated.

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