redo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet only states the basic action. It doesn't say what happens when there is nothing to redo, whether the change is re-applied silently, or whether it requires Studio to be connected/active.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Appropriate for a simple zero-argument action.

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 trivial zero-param tool the description is serviceable, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits edge-case behavior (empty history, error conditions) that an agent would want before invoking a state-mutating command.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. Nothing misleading is present.

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 resource ('last undone Studio change'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from its obvious sibling 'undo'. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the pairing 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 implied by the description ('last undone change') and the presence of a sibling 'undo' tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it, what happens if the undo history is empty, or interaction with the undo sibling.

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