Project redo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered; the description is consistent with them and adds the redo-stack semantics plus the step-range limit. It does not explain what happens when the redo stack is empty or how 'steps' beyond the stack behaves, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded with the verb, scope and shortcut. The appended '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-006...' line is procedural metadata that does not describe the tool itself and dilutes an otherwise clean definition.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive redo operation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing. Only the edge-case behavior of an exhausted redo stack is left unaddressed.

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% and the lone 'steps' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1–20, default 1); the description merely restates that range. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Redo model edits') and explicitly ties the scope to its counterpart ('undone with project_undo'), so the redos-vs-undos distinction from the sibling tool is unambiguous. An agent can pick between project_redo and project_undo without opening either 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 gives clear context for when this applies (reversing edits previously undone with project_undo) and names the paired tool, effectively routing the agent. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or disambiguation from other history-related siblings.

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