redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether redo works multiple levels deep, what happens when the undo stack is empty, whether it errors or no-ops, or which document is affected by default — all relevant for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 no filler, and the essential information is front-loaded. It is efficient but almost too terse to earn a top score.

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?

The tool is low complexity with one optional, well-documented parameter and no output schema, so little is strictly required. However, with zero annotations the description leaves the redo-stack semantics and empty-stack behavior unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%; document_id is fully documented in the schema (name or 0-based index, defaults to front document). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (redo) and resource (the last undone operation), and the phrase 'last undone' implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'undo'. It does not explicitly differentiate from undo_history or undo_beginGroup/endGroup, so it stops short of 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings undo, undo_history, or undo_beginGroup/undo_endGroup. The only usage signal is the implicit 'after an undo' framing baked into the word 'redone'.

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