edit_redo

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive edit. The description adds one piece of context beyond them: that the call returns what was redone. It does not disclose history-stack scope (per session vs global), error behavior when nothing is undone, or whether repeated calls walk further forward.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and nothing redundant is included. It is terse to the point of omitting useful behavior, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's single return-value sentence is doing real but minimal work. For a stateful, non-idempotent history operation in a large DAW toolset, missing details about the undo/redo stack scope and empty-stack behavior leave gaps.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to add to; baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing argument descriptions.

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 clear verb (redo) and resource (the last undone edit), and the phrase 'step undone last' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling edit_undo without naming it. No explicit routing sentence, so not a 5.

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 word 'undone last' implies the prerequisite that a prior undo must exist, which is the only usage context given. There is no explicit when-to-use vs edit_undo statement, no mention of what happens when the redo stack is empty, and no alternatives named.

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