Undo / Redo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context (runs in background mode, never invokes Computer Use), but says nothing about reversibility, undo-stack limits, or what gets destroyed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying execution mode, though it is somewhat tangential to the primary purpose.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and execution mode but omits behavior at boundaries (what happens after 20 undos, whether redo history is cleared) and does not clarify the action parameter's default direction.

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 50%: count is documented in the schema, but action's enum values (undo/redo) are undocumented there. The description mentions 'undo or redo actions,' which partly compensates by implying the action values, but adds nothing about count or defaults.

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 clear verb pair (undo/redo) and the resource (actions in Illustrator), so an agent can immediately tell what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other execution-related siblings like recover_execution or run_script, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to use undo versus redo, nor any alternative tool named. The second sentence describes execution mechanics rather than selection criteria, leaving usage entirely implied.

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