redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the forward direction of movement but does not mention what happens when the end of the undo history is reached, whether it modifies the undo stack, or whether prior undo operations are required. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it leans slightly terse and could have included a bit more contextual detail without becoming bloated.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description combined with the schema's min/max constraints provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, the lack of any behavior notes, annotations, or output/error expectations leaves the description minimal but adequate for this simple case.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain that the 'steps' parameter represents the number of undo-history steps to advance. The wording 'step forward' strongly implies it, but the description adds no direct parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema's title and constraints already show.

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 uses a specific verb ('step forward') and names the exact resource ('Blender's undo history'), so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It also inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling 'undo' tool by direction, leaving no ambiguity about what redo does.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to advance through Blender's undo history, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives like 'undo' or 'restore_checkpoint' to help the agent choose between them.

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