redo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two important non-obvious behaviors: the redo stack is invalidated by new graph changes, and the tool returns a specific error object when nothing can be redone. This is meaningful operational context for an agent.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral constraints are stated succinctly in the second sentence.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and a clear sibling relationship to 'undo', the description is complete. It explains when the operation applies, when it fails, and how the redo stack behaves, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to enrich. The description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: reapplying changes that were just undone ('방금 undo 한 변경을 다시 적용한다'). It is immediately distinguishable from its sibling 'undo' by framing redo as the inverse operation.

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 description explicitly ties usage to the preceding 'undo' operation and states the invalidation condition: a new graph change clears the redo stack. It also defines the failure case ('nothing_to_redo'), giving the agent concrete conditions for when the tool will not work.

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