live_redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes the operation targets the live running session, but discloses nothing about failure modes (what happens if there is nothing to redo), reversibility, or effect on history.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It earns its length, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still omits the meaning of 'steps', the undo/redo relationship, and any failure behavior, leaving real gaps for an agent.

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 parameter 'steps' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. The 'edit(s)' pluralization is the only faint hint that the operation can cover multiple edits, which does not compensate for the undocumented integer parameter.

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 edit(s)') and scopes it to the 'running Studio One' instance. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling live_undo, which is the obvious alternative an agent will weigh.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the precondition (a prior undo) and no reference to live_undo. The description only implies usage through the word 'Redo' itself.

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