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 non-obvious statefulness: the operation only applies to the most recently undone mutation and restores a per-badge snapshot, which is the inverse of undo's behavior. It could mention the empty-redo failure case, but for a zero-parameter utility the disclosure is strong.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the operative statement, the when-to-use condition, and the explicit exclusion with its alternative. The core verb and object are front-loaded with no 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?

Given the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, stateful scoping, and sibling routing completely. The only omission is an explicit failure-mode statement for when there is nothing to redo, which is minor against the simple surface area.

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 tool takes zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description must document. The phrase 'per-badge snapshot' usefully clarifies the implicit scope of the operation even though no parameters exist.

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 and resource: 'Re-apply the most recently undone mutation.' Adding 'restoring the per-badge snapshot that undo removed' pins down the exact semantics, and the explicit contrast with the sibling tool `undo` makes it unambiguous which operation is which.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Use when: an undo was issued by mistake... Do NOT use when: reverting a new change — use undo.' This directly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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