redo

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add state-changing context. It confirms a project-scoped history mutation but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., nothing to redo), whether history is global or per-project, or any permission requirements.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though the extreme brevity leaves needed semantic detail on the table rather than being 'appropriately sized' for a tool with an optional, undocumented parameter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a mutation tool with an undocumented optional parameter, the description omits what the default project resolution is and what failure looks like — gaps an agent would care about before calling.

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 single 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and defaults to null, yet the description only says 'in a project' without explaining what omitting it does (presumably the currently open project). With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does not.

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?

Specific verb (redo) plus resource context (last undone action in a project) — an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'undo', relying instead on the name to convey direction, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'last undone action', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the 'undo' sibling as the inverse operation, and no statement about what happens when the undo history is empty.

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