redo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the operation applies to Live's undo history and mirrors Ctrl+Y; it does not mention reversibility, history limits, or failure behaviour when nothing is left to redo.

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 zero filler; the count semantics and the keyboard analogy are both front-loaded and earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the destructive/read-only profile is fully covered by annotations. What remains thin is the interplay with 'undo' and edge-case behaviour, but for a one-parameter history tool the definition is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'steps' parameter. 'N undone actions' does convey that steps is a count of redo operations, but it omits the default of 1, valid ranges, and whether zero or negative values are meaningful.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Redo N undone actions') plus the host application ('in Live'), so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'undo' via the word 'undone' but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 Ctrl+Y analogy gives a clear real-world equivalent and implies the tool is for stepping forward through Live's undo history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer 'undo', 'press_live_shortcut', or what happens when the redo stack is empty.

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