session_redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the snapshot-level scope, but not whether the operation mutates session state destructively, what happens on an empty redo stack, whether a new edit clears the redo history, or any permission requirements.

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 tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the operation is low-complexity with one parameter. Still, for a state-mutating tool with no annotations, the session_id semantics and the empty-redo-stack behavior are gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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% and there is one required parameter, session_id, whose meaning and accepted format the description never touches. With a coverage gap this large the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 ("Redo") plus a scoped resource ("the last snapshot-level undo in this session"), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implies the counterpart relationship to session_undo but never names it, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase "the last snapshot-level undo" hints the tool is only valid after an undo has occurred, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent gets no guidance on ordering or on what happens when there is nothing to redo.

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