Reapply the most recently undone operation in Cakewalk SONAR; it runs silently, so verify results through other means because the screen may not change.
Reapply the operation most recently undone. Same silent behaviour as cw_undo — no window, no element change, so the result cannot be confirmed from the screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses a genuinely useful trait: the operation is 'silent' and its result 'cannot be confirmed from the screen.' That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., empty redo stack) or what is returned, so it is not fully exhaustive.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and the key silent-operation caveat. It could still mention edge cases such as an empty undo/redo history, but the essential context is present.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing additional for the description to document, and it correctly does not invent parameter behavior.
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 names a specific verb ('Reapply') and resource ('the operation most recently undone'), making the action unambiguous. It references the sibling cw_undo for contrast, though it does not explicitly route between them.
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 only implied: the agent must infer that this is the inverse of cw_undo and should follow an undo. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives, or of any preconditions (e.g., an undo history must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.