Redo

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: discloses that the Archicad 26 API has no redo function so it drives the macOS Edit menu item, describes the return shape (performed, requested, redone, next), explains that dryRun only reports, and warns that undo (and thus redo state) can be affected by the user or other tools. This is exactly the extra-behavior disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and the key semantic ('one undo step'), then layers caveats. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical asides, but every sentence carries information; no obvious filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return fields and the platform/menu-invocation caveat, which is the main risk an agent needs to know. It does not state behavior when the redo stack is empty, but 'performed'/'next' imply it; otherwise complete for this tool.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by defining what a 'step' means in terms of connector tool calls and clarifying dryRun's reporting-only behavior. 'force' is left to the schema, which covers it adequately.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Redos the last undone Archicad operation(s)') anchored to a familiar UI equivalent (Edit > Redo), and it is immediately distinguishable from the sibling 'undo'. An agent can tell exactly what it does 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?

Clear context for use: redo the last undone operations, with the 'steps' rationale spelled out (each connector tool call = one undo step). It also clarifies dryRun for inspection. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not contrast with 'undo', but the surrounding context makes usage unambiguous.

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