redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys the core mutation (restores undone changes) but omits any state requirements, limits on available redo depth, or behavior when nothing has been undone. For a simple self-evident operation this is only mildly deficient.

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 sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The Args block is largely boilerplate, and the 'ctx: MCP context' line adds nothing since ctx is not in the schema, but overall the text is short.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema utility tool, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (redo-stack constraints, error behavior) are minor for an operation this simple.

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 0% and the schema gives only a bare 'steps' integer with default 1; the description compensates by explaining 'How many steps to redo (default 1)', adding meaning the schema lacks. The 'ctx' mention does not correspond to any schema parameter, a minor inconsistency.

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 ('Redo') and resource ('the last undone change(s) in Houdini'), which clearly pairs with the sibling 'undo' tool via the word 'undone'. It does not explicitly name the undo tool, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'undone' phrasing — the agent infers it should be called after an undo — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative beyond the implicit undo pairing.

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