Redo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it doesn't say what scope redo applies to, what it does when there is nothing to redo, or what state gets overwritten.

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 short sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool whose annotations flag it as destructive.

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 zero-parameter command whose annotations carry the mutability flags, a one-line description is nearly adequate. It still omits the operating scope (which document/editor the redo applies to) and the no-op case, both relevant for a destructive-flagged 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly implies a parameterless command. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

"Redo the last undone change" names the operation and its scope, so an agent knows it re-applies the most recently undone edit. However, it largely restates the name/title and does not distinguish itself from the sibling `undo` tool, leaving the caller to infer the pairing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (an undone change must exist), and no mention of the obvious alternative `undo`. The agent gets no routing help between redo and undo.

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