blender_redo

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior and the keyboard equivalent, which is transparent for a simple no-parameter action, but it does not mention side effects, failure behavior when the redo stack is empty, or whether any state is returned.

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 entire description is one short sentence that wastes no words. The core action is stated first, and the shortcut equivalence adds a helpful but non-essential detail at the end.

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 parameterless, standard redo operation, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the action and the equivalent shortcut. It mostly lacks an explicit note about the absence of an undo history producing no effect or an error, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input surface and the description needs to add nothing about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are required.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Redo') and resource ('the last undone operation in Blender'), and is immediately understandable. It also implicitly differentiates itself from the sibling blender_undo by stating it performs the opposite action, and the Ctrl+Shift+Z shortcut reinforces the exact operation.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used after an undo has occurred, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus blender_undo or what happens when there is nothing to redo. The shortcut equivalence provides useful context, but the guidance is mostly inferred rather than stated.

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