Restore the most recently undone change in an Aegisub/ASS subtitle document and report redo depth, undo depth, and dirty state.
Redo the last undone change.
Returns {"doc_id", "redone", "undo_depth", "redo_depth", "dirty"};
redone is False when the redo stack is empty. Line indices are
0-based.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the empty-stack case (redone=False) and the returned dict keys, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about the fact that this mutates document state, what 'dirty' means, or any permission/locking requirements.
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?
Front-loads the action in a single clean sentence, then adds edge-case behavior. The return-dict enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and not wasteful overall.
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 the return-value detail is optional rather than necessary. The main gap is the undocumented doc_id parameter and the absence of any mutation/annotation context, leaving the agent guessing about targeting and side effects.
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% for the single doc_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains that doc_id targets a specific document or what happens when it is null (default). The one line of index context ('0-based') is about line indices, not this parameter, so it adds no relevant meaning.
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 precise verb ('Redo') and resource ('the last undone change'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling ass_undo or ass_undo_history, but the pairing is self-evident from the wording.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation name but never stated: there is no guidance on when to redo vs. inspect ass_undo_history, nor on what doc_id selects. For a trivial redo this is adequate but unhelpful beyond the obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.