Redo Last Undone Operation

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it re-applies a change (a mutation) and returns success status and a state summary, but it does not elaborate on failure conditions or side effects beyond the basic redo action.

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 description is exceptionally concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds essential information (what it does, no args, return value). No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the core aspects: purpose, argument requirement, and return value. It could mention that a redo is only possible after an undo, but this is strongly implied by the tool name and title, making the description sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the description reinforces this with 'No arguments required.' The schema already fully documents the parameter set, so the description adds little beyond redundancy, but the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states the verb 'Redo' and the resource 'last undone operation,' and adds the clarifying phrase 'Re-applies the most recently undone change.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool design_undo by being its inverse, making the purpose 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?

The context of use is implied: it must follow an undo operation to be meaningful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus when not to use, nor does it reference the prerequisite design_undo tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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