Restore recently undone CATIA operations. Reapply the specified number of steps (up to 50) to reverse an undo.
Redo the last undone operation(s) in CATIA. Best-effort, like catia_undo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| times | No | How many steps to redo. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the behavioral nuance 'Best-effort, like catia_undo,' indicating the operation may not fully succeed, which is valuable beyond the structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Redo the last undone operation(s)') and then adds a behavioral caveat and sibling comparison, all in minimal space.
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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations describing destructiveness, the description is mostly complete. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that the operation applies to the active document, which could matter in a multi-document CATIA session, but this is implied by the tool's context.
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% and the 'times' parameter is fully documented with its meaning ('How many steps to redo') and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?
Description states a specific verb ('Redo') and resource ('last undone operation(s) in CATIA'), clearly indicating its function. The phrase 'like catia_undo' anchors it as the counterpart to a sibling, making it distinguishable from other tools without opening schemas.
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 description provides clear context: it is for redoing previously undone operations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but since catia_undo is the only directly related sibling and the purpose is unambiguous, the usage context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.