redo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: it is a state-dependent mutation, it is only valid after an undo, and its history is destroyed by a subsequent operation. It does not state permission/auth requirements or whether the redo can cross project boundaries, which are the remaining gaps.

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-loaded with the core action, then conditions, then returns, then a pointer to the status tool. Every block is purposeful; the Returns list is somewhat verbose but justified because no output schema exists.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the return shape, the precondition, and the invalidation rule, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of auth/permission context or scope limitations, keeping it just under complete.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the implicit scoping that the redo applies within a project, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (redo) and resource (a previously undone operation in a project), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `undo` by requiring that an undo has already occurred. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Only available after an undo operation'), the invalidation rule ('If a new operation is performed after undo, the redo history is cleared'), and routes the agent to a sibling for checking availability ('Use get_undo_redo_status'). This is full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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