Redo

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: it shares history with drawing_undo, requires the EZDXF_UNDO_DEPTH environment variable, and explains the redo branch discard rule. This is genuinely useful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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 description is compact yet complete: a one-line purpose, a prerequisite, and a behavioral caveat. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool, this description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the required backend setting, and the branch-discard semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and no critical gaps remain.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description focuses on the operation and its prerequisites, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is warranted since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Reapply the operation you just undid," which clearly defines the tool's action and distinguishes it from drawing_undo. It also explicitly references the undo tool, making the relationship 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?

The description provides clear usage context: it names drawing_undo as the sibling, states the EZDXF_UNDO_DEPTH prerequisite, and warns that drawing after an undo discards the redo branch. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or say when not to use this tool beyond the discard condition.

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