Reapply the next undone editor transaction in Chorono to restore animation edits after an undo.
Redo one editor transaction.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "redo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | No | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| expectedRevision | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description should explain mutation behavior. It says nothing about whether the redo stack is cleared, what happens when no redoable transaction exists (error vs no-op), or whether the session must be active — all critical for a state-mutating 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, so structure is fine. But the brevity crosses into under-specification — there is no room left for the behavioral or parameter context this tool needs.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotation coverage of reversibility, and zero parameter documentation for a mutation tool. Given the tool operates on editor history state, the definition should at least explain redo-stack semantics and failure modes; all of that is missing.
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% across three parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The meanings of sessionId (target session), requestId (idempotency/echo), and expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency check) are left entirely undocumented, a significant gap even though all parameters are optional.
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 names a specific verb (redo) and resource (one editor transaction), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does not contrast with the sibling 'undo' or clarify whether 'one transaction' means a single undo-stack step versus an entire session's history, leaving ambiguity in scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use redo versus undo, or what conditions must hold (e.g., a prior undo). The related 'undo' tool appears in siblings but is never mentioned, so the agent must infer the pairing entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.