redo

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this mutates scene state by reversing undo, but says nothing about what happens when the redo stack is empty, whether history depth limits the operation, or whether it requires an active session — all material for a state-changing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope land immediately. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for the steps parameter.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain 'steps' and failure behavior on an empty redo stack. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess at multi-step and error semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the 'steps' parameter is documented nowhere. The plural '(s)' in 'change(s)' hints that multiple steps are possible but never explains the parameter, its default of 1, its range, or what exceeding available history does.

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 the exact resource/scope ('the last undone change(s) in Houdini'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from node-building siblings. It does not explicitly name a counterpart undo tool, but the action itself is fully identifiable.

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 purpose makes the when-to-use case self-evident (reversing an undo), so guidance is implied rather than stated. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., an active Houdini session or an existing undo history), or when-not to call it.

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