redo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says that redo affects the last undone changes and that steps controls how many, but it does not describe what happens when there is nothing to redo, whether the operation mutates the undo stack, or whether it can fail.

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 core statement is one clear sentence, and the parameter description is brief and helpful. The 'ctx: MCP context' line is unnecessary and not part of the input schema, which slightly reduces structure quality.

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 simple one-parameter tool, this is mostly sufficient, but it lacks context about the undo/redo pair, the behavior on an empty redo stack, and what the tool returns or reports. Since there is no output schema, a bit more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description explains 'steps: How many steps to redo (default 1),' which gives meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. The extra 'ctx' line is noise but not harmful.

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 states a specific verb ('Redo') and a specific resource ('the last undone change(s) in Houdini'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and it inherently contrasts with the sibling 'undo' tool.

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 'last undone change(s)' implies this should be used after undo operations, and the 'steps' argument implies repeated undo/redo scenarios. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling 'undo', nor any exclusion guidance.

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