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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing cost ('Free'), required scope ('act'), idempotency on an already-pending move, and the critical limitation that a posted output stays posted. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking an undo-style mutation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by constraints, and every clause carries decision-relevant information (scope, cost, idempotency, restore limits). Nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, side-effect boundaries, and failure cases. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the single move_id parameter is already documented as a uuid sourced from list_feed. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 (restore), resource (growth move), and the exact prior states it reverses (just-shipped or just-skipped), so an agent can tell it apart from ship_move, skip_move, and accept_move without opening a schema. The framing as 'the self-correction verb for a wrong ship or skip' pins the intent precisely.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (correcting a wrong ship or skip) and several when-not conditions: it never unwinds a real channel publish and cannot restore archived or expired moves. It does not name a sibling tool as the alternative (e.g., re-proposing via propose_move), so it stops just short of explicit routing.

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